Butterfly

Once again, as I write this, I gotta tell ya, I saw this on the "Z" Channel in Los Angeles in the early 80's. I had three emotions while seeing this..one was, "This is messed up" then laughter, and one more was: "Pia Zadora isn't THAT bad of an actress."

You see, it WAS the 80's. Pia had an on screen "something" that with the right vehicle could have given her a decent film career. Leading Lady? No way. The second or third important female role? You betcha. Such as "the wicked sister" or "the backstabbing girl friend" roles, with the type of stuff that was coming out then. She could have been a "cheap rent" Jane Seymour type in films playing those rolls. But she got this one...and it wasn't that great. The story was all over the place, the sexual tension was laughable and...very confusing at times. This film is bad, but top 200 bad, not top 50 bad.

The gosh-awful script didn't help ANYONE in this film. It was bad. There is a bit of "camp" film quality running through this film at points, not enough to make it a "good-camp" film to redeem it. A lot of misguided areas here, a hodgepodge of a story and a lot of wasted talent.

Thank goodness for all involved, there was a paycheck waiting for them at the end.

Butterfly (1982)

** (out of 4)

Based on the James M. Cain novel, this film centers on the young Kady Tyler (Pia Zadora) who returns home to live with her father Jess (Stacy Keach) and soon she begins to seduce him. Yeah, you read that right. Zadora made history with this film as she won the Razzie Worst Actress award while at the same time winning the Golden Globe New Star of the Year award. You can read about the controversy behind the Globes win elsewhere but to say this film is normal would be a very big lie. BUTTERFLY isn't nearly as bad or as trashy as its reputation would have you believe. It's not a soft-core porn flick if that's what you're expecting but more of a romantic mystery that probably shouldn't have been made. Those coming to the film to see how horrid Zadora is are also going to be disappointed because I really didn't find her as bad as the film's reputation. It seems she just became a punchline after winning the Golden Globe and while she's certainly not great or even good here, there's no doubt that she's taken way too much heat for the performance. I thought she played that dirty teenager well enough for a film like this. What she lacks is certainly made up by Keach who is actually very good here. I thought he did a very good job at showing the conflict that his male/father character had over the sexual advances of his daughter. Another person who's "bad performance" reputation is somewhat of a lie is that of Orson Welles who plays a judge. I really didn't find him to be bad here and in fact I thought he was quite good and that his performance certainly had a wink to the viewer to it. The film falls flat on a few levels including the running time, which just goes on way too long. The screenplay itself just doesn't have enough interesting moments to help keep the thing entertaining from start to finish. Another problem is that director Matt Cimber just doesn't add enough spark or energy to the picture. BUTTERFLY will probably always been known as a disaster but I think its reputation is quite unfair. It's not a good movie but there are certainly much worse out there.

Another film based upon a book by James M Cain and, naturally, another controversy. Cain's work always tended to focus upon emotions running high and passion, particularly, sexual passion, being exploited for another's gain. Postman Always Rings Twice and Double Indemnity also exploit these human frailties (qualities?) but they never encounter quite the derision heaped upon this fine film. Strangely, enough, a most faithful interpretation of the book, just lacking the sticky claustrophobia of the original's interiors. Obviously this is disliked because of the way the 'incest' scenes are played but it is, as they say, only a film and this is not meant as a an advertisement but as an exploration. Worse things than this happen as we well know and to fall over ourselves to throw the first stone at a movie seems crazy. Especially if it has one of Stacy Keach's best performances, a great and most convincing one from Pia Zadora (who deserved her Golden Globe newcomer award) and at least an interesting late appearance from Orson Welles. Super cinematography, competent direction, fine score from Morricone and great steamy story. What's not to like?

This is a movie that would have been good as the "B" film at the drive-in. You could tell from the beginning that it was a movie made for television. I worked extra on the set, and Orson Welles had a bottle of wine behind his podium as he did his judge shtick. He drank so much he would forget his lines, and he abused the cue card holders something fierce. After awhile, we ungrateful extras were yelling, "He will drink all wine before its time!" Cruel, but we were frustrated. Stacy Keach was a consummate professional, however. He acted as though the movie was "Citizen Kane." I have had great respect for him ever since.

Pia Zadora was not the worst actress of 1981. Nor was she even close to giving a bad performance. This unknown actress in her mid 20's was able to dazzle the audience with her sexy charm. Let alone, act opposite both Stacey Keach and Orson Welles. That alone is a spectacular in itself. For those haters who shun this movie, I agree. It's a weird movie with weird characters. Still, its better than half the crap Hollywood is making today. This fact along with the fact that people are still viewing this movie, gives a strong defense that Pia did a good job and that this movie is worth the watch.