3-D Thursday: The Stewardesses (1969)

The Stewardesses is a historically important 3-D movie. That's not the same thing as saying it's a good movie, however.  Point in fact, when I first saw it in 2006 I stood up at the end of the movie and loudly declared "Somebody owes me 90 minutes of my life". Eleven years later, I still haven't got that 90 minutes back.

Made in 1969 for around $100,000, The Stewardesses went on to make an improbable $26 million at the box office. Part of this surely had to be a novelty factor. After all, this was one of the first pornos as we've come to know them today. Softcore, sure, but nobody had really seen anything like it. Add to that the fact it was in 3-D and of course it became one of the most profitable movies ever.

It's fairly pointless to talk about plot with a movie like this. For the benefit of anyone who hasn't seen a porno before, that's because there is no plot. Just a series of vignettes about the sexual escapades of a group of stewardesses in L.A. one night. A lesbian tries seducing her best friend, one stewardess drops acid and makes love to a lamp (you did not misread that), one takes a soldier headed for Vietnam out for the time of his life, etc. The closest the movie comes to a plot involves a stewardess named Samantha (Christina Hart) dating an ad executive (Michael Garret) in an effort to get him to cast her in a commercial. I would never ruin the end of a good movie, so let me spare you some pain and time: he eventually agrees but tells her she'll only ever be a mouth. After essentially raping her, she's mortified so she murders him and commits suicide. The End.

It's worth noting that Hart went on to play Patricia Krenwinkle in the 1976 version of Helter Skelter. She was also at a screening of The Stewardesses in 2006 at the World 3-D Film Expo II. She walked out of the theater during the acid trip scene. I can't imagine why.

There's two major problems with this movie. The first is the tone. What starts off as a stupid sex comedy slowly turns ugly culminating in the suicide mentioned above. The beginning jokes of the movie are at odds with the final scenes. Mind you, there's plenty of sleazy things in the movie. For instance, the acid trip is a whole new level of "what did I just watch?".  But there's different levels of sleaze: this should be sleaze that's fun, not that makes you feel bad for watching it. And yes, by the time The Stewardesses is over, you'll hate yourself for watching it.

The other major problem is the cinematography. It may sound like a weird complaint to make against a porn film, but one would think that a director who created his own 3-D camera would at least have some basic knowledge of how to frame a shot. But the framing in this thing is absolutely abominable.  Heads are cut off constantly. There's an occasional decent 3-D shot, but then there's shots where the effect is pretty much ruined by poor framing. I'm not even talking about close ups of breasts or anything like that. I'm talking about full body shots where the top half of the actor's heads are chopped off and yet they're having a conversation! I admit to being astounded at just how poorly done this movie is. It's not merely a bad 3-D movie, it's a badly shot bad 3-D movie.

Despite the story and the incompetent filming, The Stewardesses became the most profitable 3-D movie ever. Unfortunately, it also inspired a decade of trashy 3-D porn films. Films like this one gave 3-D the black eye it had in the public eye for decades. To not put too fine a point on it, The Stewardesses is arguably the worst thing to ever happen to 3-D.

Now Kino has blessed(?) us with a fully restored 3D Blu Ray. I can't say anything bad about the Blu Ray in particular. The image is sharp and no doubt the best the movie has ever looked. Frankly, it's a shame a movie this bad looks so good. The highlight of the disc isn't the movie, but the bonus short included. 1976's Experiments in Love is also pornographic but is more fun, better shot, and has plenty of pop outs. Whether or not the short is reason enough to get the disc is up to you. As for me, I'd still like that 90 minutes back.

1776 (1972)

In May 1776 the Second Continental Congress is meeting in Philadelphia but, much to the frustration of thee delegate from Massachusetts John Adams (William Daniels), aren't doing much of anything. Adams is pushing for the Colonies to declare their independence from the oppression of Great Britain but is met with opposition from John Dickinson of Pennsylvania. Dickinson is still hoping for reconciliation with England. Not helping matters are the dispatches from General George Washington, all of which paint a bleak picture. The debate is so intense that it is decided that a declaration of independence must be unanimous, something that seems doubtful at best.

Originally a Broadway musical, 1776 was brought to the big screen in 1972 by Jack Warner and Columbia Pictures. It was the last movie Warner produced. It's also one of the few musicals to import virtually the entire Broadway cast into the movie.

As a movie, 1776 is a mixed bag. As a musical, it's a bit of a failure to be honest. It's not that the tunes are particularly bad as much as they are just there. None of them are particularly memorable. I finished the movie a little over an hour ago and already I can't particularly recall the lyrics. As a side note, I feel La La Land suffers from the same problem. He Plays the Fiddle and Cool, Cool Considerate Men might be the most memorable and even they aren't something you're going to be singing afterward.

On the other hand, the overall story of the debate and indeed the scenes of the debate itself is fascinating stuff. Truth to tell, I feel this would have been as good or even better a movie had it not been a musical but just a straight telling of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. There's not too many movies about this time period in American History to begin with. Most of those movies deal with the battles of the Revolutionary War. So to actually get a movie that gets into the politics of the period is a rare treat indeed.

The cast is pretty engaging if occasionally hammy. Ken Howard acquits himself nicely enough as Thomas Jefferson. Daniels goes a little too far as Adams to prove his oft-quoted line of being obnoxious and disliked. Donald Madden's John Dickinson is a little more restrained. But for pure unadulterated ham so thick you can feed a family of 12 a holiday dinner with it, look no further than Ron Holgate as Richard Henry Lee. Perhaps the best member of the cast is Howard Da Silva as Benjamin Franklin. He's a delight to watch and steals the majority of the scenes he's in.

Of course, there's historical inaccuracies all over the place, but you find that in any historical fiction. Even Titanic (1997) got some things hilariously if not offensively wrong. Then again, perhaps the mere fact that it is a musical makes the mistakes more forgivable than in a straight out drama.

Sadly for Jack L. Warner, 1776 was produced in a time when movie musicals were hopelessly out of vogue. As a result of that fact and the fact that the songs themselves are nothing to write home about, the movie was a legendary flop. 45 years later it is a little better appreciated by cinema buffs I doubt it will make anybody's list of top ten musicals. On the other hand, if you're a history buff, this is a movie well worth watching.