Never Seen It, #96 of 200: Little Shop of Horrors

Feed me, Puke on Your Birthday, feed me 200 movies I've never seen before.

Little Shop of Horrors

1986

Frank Oz

Welcome back to PoYB film correspondent Frank for another discussion about a Never Seen It film that he requested to talk about two years ago when I first posted the list. Like last time, we blindly exchanged questions, and then answered each other's questions. And like last time, there's some overlap (for one question that we happened to ask each other, I combined them as best I could), but overall, I'd once again call it a successful blogging excursion to the heart of the matter. Thanks Frank!

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe's question: Was this a good film for Frank Oz to direct? Does anything stand out to you as an aspect of the movie that makes sense under his direction? Am I wrong in seeing some of that Muppets-style madcap humor in a lot of this, or is that just confirmation bias?

Frank's answer: This is a perfect movie for Frank Oz to direct because as a puppeteer he is constantly thinking about "where" the camera is. The mise-en-scène is crucial for a movie like this, and that is his world of expertise. I think you are spot on, the humor is very Muppet-esque.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe's question: I saw that there was a different ending originally, but they cut it because it tested poorly. I purposefully watched the original, but I saw there was a director's cut. Not sure which one you watched. But seeing one and being aware of the other, which do you think sounds like a better ending? Did they make the right decision in cutting it originally?

Frank's question: Going to start with not a question, but a request. I'm sure you came across in your research for this movie that the original ending was obliterated by a test audience and they made Frank Oz go back and shoot a new happier ending. The original ending was not destroyed though. It exists and was even part of a director's cut put out a few years back. It's over 20 minutes long. That's definitely a big ask of time, but I seriously am curious about what your thoughts are on the original ending. It's certainly darker, but it is closer to how the stage show ends. I think in a lot of ways it is better. I get that audiences wanted a happy ending I guess, but I think it undercuts a lot of the satire of the movie.

Two thoughts I guess: if you watch it, do you agree with me that the alternate ending is superior? And second, a little broader: this happens with Blade Runner and Superman II and Apocalypse Now and more recently Justice League, where there is this mythical director's cut that exists out there that all the nerds covet and whisper about. We assume that there is a creative vision that is being squashed by soulless "suits," and 99% of the time we are right. Just let art "be" as a rule, or did they have a point with this ending?

Joe's answer: I really appreciate the pressure to watch the alternate ending. That's not usually something I'm into. In fact, whenever I see "director's cut" when I'm trying to stream or "legally" download a movie, I purposefully choose the theatrical / original release. (This is similar to how I feel about bonus tracks on albums, I guess, though I shouldn't get into that here.)

Glad you got me to watch the director's cut ending for Little Shop, though, since it was fucking great. I feel weird comparing the two endings, but if you're putting a gun to my head, then hell yeah, the alt-ending was way better. It was fucking hilarious! Mainly due to the fact that it just kept going and going and going. Like, the main characters are dead, and then here's fifteen more minutes of the plants just killing entire cities and crawling all over the Statue of Liberty. I wanted this movie to feel like a Muppet movie, and, ignoring the actual violence, this ending got the closest to that spirit.

It's really tough to claim, though, that this was some corporate fuckery that resulted in a "worse" ending being shot and released. Maybe this is just me being unfamiliar with the "test screening" process, but it seems like actual audiences were there in the mid-'80s, and they disliked the original ending, and so what choice did anyone have but to change it to meet the audience's needs and desires? Unless the thumb was on the scales in some way, like some bankers stacking the audience with morons so that the scales would be tipped in favor of changing the ending? Seems unlikely to me. But who am I to say.

So all this in mind, I'd be more likely to consider the creative success of Little Shop's director's cut as an exception and not a rule. All that stuff with the "mythical supercut" seems like snobbery to me, honestly. Like, there's people who don't like a movie because it didn't appeal to their direct sensibilities, and instead of just saying "well, that wasn't as good as I had hoped," they instead whine and complain that the director's vision was COMPROMISED and that the film studios SNUFFED OUT THEIR VISION. Seems self-centered to me.

Sure, maybe some films warrant five different fucking versions like Blade Runner, in an attempt to appeal to everyone. But why not go farther than that? Why not release 10,000 versions of a film? Let's make sure every single person in America has exactly the film that they so desire. That way we can stamp out any criticism whatsoever and kill all discussion about the merits of any particular film.

I know that's hyperbole, but I'm just trying to say that I roll my eyes a lot when we talk about director's cuts. I'm pretty cool with just taking what we get from the beginning, and discussing it from there, instead of trying to force changes on the original text because I'm throwing some type of hissy fit.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe's question: I was surprised to see Bob Gaudio's name pop up in the opening credits. Curious to hear your thoughts about that sort of "classic sound" that permeates Little Shop. I don't know if this is a question, I just like reading about music, whether it's the Four Tops or the Four Seasons.

Frank's answer: I think it does a great job with that music, I didn't even remember that he was involved! Obviously Levi Stubbs is perfect in this.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Frank's question: Howard Ashman wrote the songs, who you may know from writing the songs for all the Disney movies of our youth: Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, etc. You can tell because his songs all follow a formula: There is a want song ("Somewhere That's Green"), a big town scene setting number ("Downtown"), and most of the songs are expository in nature, driving the plot and characters forward. This sounds like a knock, but it isn't! I think this is what makes his musicals super accessible.

I like Rocky Horror Picture Show, which I will bring up again in a second, but I wonder if one of the things that makes it hard to access for you is that the songs really aren't that expository. Even when they give plot details like in "Eddie's Teddy" or "Rose Tint My World," it often leaves us with more questions. "The Time Warp" is a non sequitur! The music in Little Shop is pitch-perfect tonally for the pastiche he is doing. Did you like the music in this? How do you feel about movie musicals overall? Do they have to jump an extra hurdle of goodness for you to be on board, or do you buy into the natural kitsch of a musical?

Joe's answer: Look, I'm all in with the kitsch. The sillier the better, I say. But the heart of the matter when it comes to my experiences with musical movies is that it can't just be all silly songs that don't make any sense. There has to be an actual movie under there somewhere. I hesitate to say that it "should be able to stand alone, without the music, and still be a good movie," because at a certain point the songs are integral to what could make a movie special. E.g. the aforementioned Beauty and the Beast is a great movie but also features some banging songs that both provide window dressing and actual plot point enhancements. "Be Our Guest" isn't a NECESSARY song, since the movie could succeed without it, but it's important because it underlines the genial desperation of the servants to improve their own lot by making Belle's stay romantically fueled, but also it's really fucking fun.

So I don't think it was the songs that I had a problem with in Rocky Horror, so much as me having a problem with the movie that they were embedded in. Hey, "Time Warp" is a really fucking fun song! But like you said, it doesn't have anything to do with what we're watching. And what are we even watching? I really didn't know most of the time! I need more than just retro-stylish camp and a good hook. I need to feel like the film has at least some sort of cohesion or at least is making some sort of fucking half-attempt at least to have a plot with well-drawn characters who make logical decisions within the framework of the world it builds.

I didn't have any of these problem with Little Shop of Horrors, by the way. Whether expository or scene-setting or big emotional ballads, I thought the songs were just as well-done if not more so than any other standard musical movie. But more importantly, I saw clearly how those songs fit into the overarching plot, how each was important both to enhance that plot and to add something, something flashy or fun, that normal prose would not be able to accomplish.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frank's question: I think it's really interesting that you watch Rocky Horror and then this so close together. They both are parodying B-movies, with a '60s rock and roll sound. I mean this one is literally an adaptation of a Roger Corman B-horror-movie where Jack Nicholson plays the Bill Murray character! Other than "this was good and that was bad," what do you think makes Little Shop work better for you?

Joe's answer: Sorry, I feel like I answered this question more with the last question. I hate to keep reiterating how disappointed I was with Rocky Horror, because honestly I acknowledge that that's on me. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, I'm just saying that it's not the movie for me. If I was to try to summarize it less poorly than I have already, I'd say that Rocky Horror felt like more of a Frankenstein of a movie, like disparate parts of B-movie parodies all screwed together into one inscrutable musical.

I did not feel that way at all with Little Shop of Horrors. Clearly it was poking fun at some of the B-movie-type plotlines you'd find in those flicks—an alien plant who eats humans!! and so on. But Seymour was an actual fucking character whose motivations you could follow. All the characters were heightened because they were supposed to be funny, but they also were, at their core, logical and rational. If this were Rocky Horror, I think Jim Belushi would have had sex with the plant, for no explained reason other than "lol isn't this movie so quirky?!"

But this is just what make Little Shop "not bad." What makes it "good" is more of how well it's made in addition to the bedrock of it following my arbitrary guidelines. The pitch-perfect '50s pastiche via the Greek chorus, the griminess of the lovingly artificial downtown set, how Audrey loses the lisp when she's getting really into the singing, the rhyming of "bicuspid" and "maladjusted," a thousand little moments, all in their place, all wacky and warm and yet also tethered to a rational whole.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe's question: I just recently watched The Jerk and kinda have a bad taste in my mouth regarding Steve Martin. He got some laughs out of me this time around, but I think it also kind of turned me off more than it would've if it was another actor, just because I'm so turned off by the nonsensical obnoxious humor style. I obviously defer to you when it comes to "comedy theory," so I'm interested in your take on this. Has Martin's style of humor gone out of style? Or am I just being a sour sport? And let's not even talk about how unnecessary the Bill Murray shit was.

Frank's answer: I recently read your review of Duck Soup, so I'm going to lump it in here with this thought that someone once told me: physical humor is always going to be timeless, and witticisms age really poorly. Cavemen would laugh at a banana peel slip the same way we would in theory. So Duck Soup can be appreciated but we are not crying our eyes out the way audiences were in 1934. I think this might apply to Billy Murray. Things just go out of taste or out of style comedy-wise. Maybe this is true for Martin too, but I am the wrong person to ask; I love The Jerk. The truth is, comedy is subjective, and I think you didn't hate Martin in this because it was a part that was pre-written, and he couldn't add in his "steve martinness" too much. BUT the important take away is I'm never going to try to convince you you're wrong for hating The Jerk. Just find the comedy that you like and enjoy it until it is irrelevant in 80 years and we are dead.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe's question: On the other hand... this movie was really fucking funny. What are some of the funnier parts, in your opinion? (Or maybe you don't think it's funny, I don't know!)

Frank's answer: Funny parts that jump out at me: John Candy DJ, how weird Christopher Guest is when he's like "say what an unusual plant!", Tichina Arnold and Tisha Campbell being the Greek chorus together and then being best friends in Martin (not a joke or intentional obviously, I just like that).... Rick Moranis' whole deal.

~~~~~~~~~~

Frank's question: I really love this movie, and a lot of its staying power has to do with the puppet being great (which is nice to have Miss Piggy steering the helm, he'll make sure the puppet looks awesome on camera). I really like the music, and I think it was cast really well. Even John Candy in like a two-second part is great.

It is one that I saw randomly on TV when I was a kid, and it was so weird and odd, and I was hooked. Most of the movies on your Never Seen It list that I specifically asked to talk about are all "great" movies, or "important." This isn't that. I think it's really nice when a movie doesn't have to be great, it can just be good at what it is, and enjoyable. Popular Art. I don't want movies like this to go by the wayside just because they aren't "important." This is a comment, not a question sorry. I got lost in my train of thought, but I'm keeping it in!

Joe's answer: I think I'd rather talk about this type of movie with you, man. If you wanna define it as "unimportant," we'll go with that. But look to the last movie we discussed, Lawrence of Arabia. Yes, definitely "important" historically, critically, commercially, culturally. It's also kind of hard to talk about in that context too! There's more pressure to, I dunno, "get it right" or something. Why it's important was established even before we were born.

With movies like Little Shop of Horrors, we get to impose our own importance. For all its failures, Your Favorite Movie was actually decent at getting to the heart of this matter. Not why it's important, but why it's important to me. You saw it as a kid, it spoke to some nascent sort of whimsical storytelling, and bam, it's important. It's special in that regard. For me, college theater program initiation involved me dressing up as a plant one year, in honor of Audrey II. I had no idea what the fuck Audrey II was at the time, but the film is important to me now because it fills in that blank.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Frank's question: Halfway through your movie-watching mission, you've seen a LOT of different types and styles of movies. Has how you watched movies or thought about them or experienced them afterward changed at all? Do you think watching this now is different than watching it five or ten years ago?

Joe's answer: First, I appreciate the question. Thanks for reading, thanks for often helping, and thanks for being invested enough that you would even notice we're exactly halfway through. To go back to a point from your last question: there's a reason these movies are on this list, and it's because someone somewhere thought it was important enough to exasperatedly question why I had never seen it. It's been a joy figuring out why that is, piece by piece, film by film.

I think just by virtue of forcing myself to write about each film, the critical eye has evolved a bit. They say you start to feel comfortable completing a task after spending x number of hours doing it. 100 movies probably equals 300ish hours of watching/writing. Not enough to feel confident in the task, but enough that I no longer feel as lost as I once did.

So had I sat down fifteen years ago in freshman year of college (jesus christ) and watched Little Shop of Horrors in preparation for my part as an Audrey II type in that year's hazing ritual, then my reaction would have been "ha yeah, pretty good" (and not just because I also would have blitzed on Hurricane 40s). I would not have been able to begin to try to explain why it was "good." Here, in 2022, halfway through a big list, I can at least stumble through that process.

It's all about knowing yourself, right? Asking what makes something "good" really means "what about YOU makes YOU think that it's good?" And self-reflection like that can be really awkward and painful and embarrassing. But at least it's something unique I (and we, on the blog writ large) can bring to the table.

I think that's what's changed the most, beyond just having a firmer (but not expert in any sense) grasp on film in general. I've changed because I have more confidence in the process. I feel now like it's actually worth doing this. There are good films, they are important, let's talk about it.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Joe's question: Have you ever seen Pam and Dranders sing "Suddenly Seymour" at a karaoke night? I have never seen it sober. Do they usually make out afterward like the characters in the movie? Please let me know as soon as you can.

Frank's answer: I have seen it, and yes you should be concerned. A funny story is one time Dranders just ghosted when he had put them in to sing it, and I volunteered to sing it with Pam, having not seen it in years, and being too inebriated to remember the melody. The words of course are on the screen. I do not think I made out with her afterward, but only God can say.

99% chance this is the duet that Frank was talking about, and if google photos is to be believed, this took place at my 24th birthday pub crawl, specifically Moriarty's

~~~~~~~~~~

GRADE (Joe's): 3.5 pukes out of 5

NEXT TIME: I feel like Look Who's Talking might be pretty germane to my current situation in the home, and I will watch it as soon as the person Who's Talking in my house right now at 1:30 in the morning Stops Talking at those hours and lets me get some sleep.