Ginger

When I reviewed the film 'Christina' for IMDb, I commented that it was very poorly made in comparison with many of the earlier films of the same genre, such as the early 1970's series featuring the female private investigator Ginger. Later thinking back about this spontaneous comment I found it hard to rationalise why I had hated watching Christina, but had enjoyed the Ginger series; and I began to wonder whether this was solely because I was looking back at the latter series, which I have not viewed during the quarter century since they were first released, through the rose coloured spectacles of relative youth. Many of the criticisms I had made about Christina seemed on reflection to have been equally applicable to the Ginger films. These and other films of the same genre were made on a relatively low budget for the sole purpose of bringing in good returns to their promoters; or (if we are more charitable) building up the funds required for the production of a planned future epic or Oscar winner. They are basically simple exploitation movies with an appeal based on sex and violence and with no pretensions to cinematographic significance. The promoters know that the largest cinema audiences consist of young people who typically attend in groups or pairs and who expect an interesting but not memorable screening they can enjoy together. Films such as "Ginger" or "Pepper" appeal to girls and women because they feature an unusually capable female investigator who can always deal with male colleagues or opponents on a more than equal basis. Their recipe includes enough violence and female nudity to ensure that they have an equal appeal for youths and young men; and they always show respect for the traditional values of Society - the good guys always win out in the end and there is no tolerance of either criminals or revolutionaries. Why then should I remember the Ginger films quarter of a century later, whilst most of the other films of the same genre which I have seen since have now been totally forgotten?

To answer this question I obtained copies of the first and third of the Ginger films ("Ginger" and "Girls are for Loving") to watch again, and am now submitting my comments on both to IMDb. These two sets of comments should be regarded as complimentary - probably the main difference between these films is that the first is a typical very low budget production designed to test the market, whilst the third has clearly benefited from rather less financial constraints. In these comments I am limiting myself to generalities when considering 'Ginger', but examining more specific considerations in the case of 'Girls are for Loving'.

Viewing these two films for a second time I found it very hard to identify any areas where they are significantly better in quality than 'Christina'. All these films feature violence, nudity and sexually suggestive situations, with no redeeming social message, often to the point where they would be regarded by most viewers as no more than soft porn. They are intended to provide easy viewing but not memorable fare. The Martin and Porter Guide to Home Videos makes the telling comment that it will not describe "Ginger" as the best of these three films, but rather as the least repulsive. However the Ginger films are still available as DVD's, and are presumably still selling, over 30 years after they were first released, so I am not alone in remembering them when so many of their later imitators have been totally forgotten. After watching them again I feel certain that this difference is primarily attributable to a much greater tautness in the script. Watching many other similar films, viewers encounter numerous rather boring sequences where they wonder why they are wasting their time watching such trash. Ultimately this leads to a low rating for the film in question. The problem here lies in the direction. Whilst they were no better made or acted, the direction of the Ginger films is such that the story carries the viewer forward from moment to moment in a way which leaves little time for introspection or boredom to develop. In my view this is the reason they have survived whilst so many later films have fallen by the wayside. But their appeal is purely that of a guilty pleasure, re-watching them reminded me of the appeal of splurging on a massive and rich ice cream concoction after a long period of dieting. The only reason why this may be said to be a good thing to do is that, certainly for some people, an occasional indulgence of this kind can be of enormous value in helping them to maintain the ongoing discipline of dieting over an extended period of time.

If you know that you enjoy this type of occasional indulgence, watch one or more of the Ginger films. You will probably not be disappointed.

Delightfully awful "Thriller" about a leggy blonde going undercover to catch a gang of bad guys and gals that are fleecing rich people somewhere in New Jersey and getting them hooked on drugs as well. Yes, the acting is really as bad as you may have heard. Cheri Caffaro says her lines with little conviction, yet she is one of the better thespians involved. I just loved the flashback scenes she goes through that are suppose to be so poignant but turn into being pure dreck - and a real hoot. Caffaro knows something about hoot, well, hooters that is. And so does the rest of the female cast. The detective helping Caffaro, William Grannel, has little acting talent either, but the worst performance which is so bad it becomes camp is by Duane Tucker as Rex Halsey, the guy that is the mastermind behind all the bad doings wearing a neck scarf throughout and has at least four buttons undone on his shirt. Everything he says he seems to be saying with such conviction to the audience as he madly overacts - rolling his eyes and saying pronouncements with facial gestures in the foreground of some of the cheapest sets I have seen in a film in some time. We do get many, many girls in various stages of undress though. The script is implausible. The budget super-cheap. With all its defects - and they are legion - I too enjoyed Ginger and look forward to seeing the two sequels. This movie is definitely a product of the 70s, a time when filmmakers could virtually and would do virtually anything they thought would be provocative. No PC here - and I find it refreshing. Movies today are so scared to walk the fine line that they have become flat in many ways. Ginger isn't flat(you gotta see it to believe it) at all. It is a guilty pleasure to be sure but one that I found very entertaining and was laughing with and about it from start to finish.

In my honest opinion, watching this movie qualifies as an utter waste of life. I can't think of any other movie (I hesitate to call this a "film") that displays less intrinsic value to the viewer. As a matter of fact, I feel dumber for having seen it. Beware the "chicks and bullets" cover, it's utterly misleading, and there is nothing remotely erotic in there. If you're in the mood to be utterly disgusted, by all means watch it. As a matter of fact, this movie engenders a certain dissapointment in the human race in general for having produced it.

There's something special about the three "Ginger" movies, something I'd very much like to see re-made or re-tried with today's sensibilities and a bigger budget. While "Ginger" is, by far, the worst of the three ("The Abductors" and "Girls are made for Loving" are actually completely watchable B-movie fare albeit with a strong sexual / sadomasochistic touch), the idiosyncrasies which made this series stand out among other, more forgettable drive-in fare, are already there in part 1. The premise of a female hero not only surviving in an otherwise men's world (and genre) but positively calling the shots is extremely rare even today. In "Haywire", Gina Carrano is bashing male stars left and right, but she is far from "calling the shots" - neither does she sexually predate like Ginger does. The same goes for Angelina Jolie's "Salt". In fact, Ginger is maybe the nearest we get in movie history to what was otherwise a very male role-model. (This is probably why she was called "the female James Bond" although she's not a secret agent at all). And while today's killing ladies are as a rule ridiculous (even Carrano - trained in martial arts - looked silly beating up guys double her weigth), Ginger very rarely relies on beating someone up - she works the weapons of a woman as well as guns, poison, traps or whatever it takes to take her opponents out. Disturbing but, in a refreshing way, at least halfway realistic!

A word on acting: As mentioned, the two follow-up movies are much better, "Ginger" otoh sports acting that can only be described as a-tro-cious. Except for Cheri Caffaro herself, she's neither a top-model nor a great actress but she has screen presence in spades (a bit like Schwarzenegger) and there are a few scenes in here (the killings of Rodney and Jimmy for instance) where she comes over truly menacing and mesmerizing. Part of her screen presence may be thanks to her tall body - maybe the other actors were cast so they were a bit smaller but she does own every scene she's in.

So, while I can't really recommend this slow-paced and cheaply-made stinker to anyone on its own merits, there are certain qualities in there which are really interesting and some themes which I would liked explored in future productions.

"Ginger' (Cheri Caffaro) is a young woman from New York who has been recruited by a private investigative company to gather intelligence on a criminal named "Rex Halsey" (Duane Tucker) who has a small operation in New Jersey which capitalizes on drugs, prostitution and blackmail. To get the evidence required for a conviction she has to infiltrate his small circle of accomplices and the last two who tried have ended up dead. Now rather than reveal any more of this movie and risk spoiling it for those who haven't seen it I will just say that I found this to be a sleazy but somewhat entertaining film all the same. Having said that I should probably add that this movie is not for those who are easily offended as it contains scenes with full frontal nudity, bondage, rape and racial slurs. Along with that it was a low-budget film which includes some weak fighting scenes, a poor script and some very basic acting. But Cheri Caffaro does a decent enough job in spite of it all and manages to keep the film moving along all the same. Likewise, having attractive young ladies like Michele Norris (as "Vicki Jennings"), Cindy Barnett ("Jean Oliver") and the aforementioned Cheri Caffaro certainly didn't hurt. Accordingly, I rate this movie as about average.