Speaker 1: HP.
Speaker 2: What does November the eighth mean to you? Specifically November
Speaker 2: the eighth, nineteen seventy two, Where were you on that day?
Speaker 3: I wasn't even born yet, father alone.
Speaker 2: And yet the day was a momentous one. That was
Speaker 2: the day the New York Rangers faced the Vancouver Canucks.
Speaker 2: More perspecting that more importantly, it was the day that
Speaker 2: Home Box Office debuted its very first programming, which was
Speaker 2: that NHL game Home Box Office, premiering very locally in
Speaker 2: Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, before spreading like a virus across the globe.
Speaker 2: Now there are twenty three HBO stations. Is it even
Speaker 2: HBO anymore? We call it Max these days. Point B
Speaker 2: special appearance by miss Ripley Jean Hey, she's always been
Speaker 2: a Cinemax fan. HBO the very first paid cable service,
Speaker 2: just to start servicing the entire United States, offering programming
Speaker 2: uninterrupted by advertising, uninterrupted by meddling, television sensors, unedited programming.
Speaker 2: Now they could offer concerts, they could offer a stand
Speaker 2: up comedy, and on occasion, they could offer theatrical productions.
Speaker 2: And that's what cable box theater is all about. Welcome
Speaker 2: patrons and new listeners all alike. This is Cable Box
Speaker 2: Theater with me in here in this inaugural episode HP,
Speaker 2: host of Night, mister Walters and composer of Everything Great
Speaker 2: from the weirding Way Media Network.
Speaker 3: Oh. Thanks, it is such a pleasure to be here,
Speaker 3: Father Malone. I'm so excited that this is such a
Speaker 3: part of our shared experiences growing up watching these things
Speaker 3: on cable. So I'm really excited to talk about this.
Speaker 2: And for our inaugural episode, we're gonna be We're gonna
Speaker 2: be talking about a theatrical production from nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 2: It is Wait Until Dark, the Frederick not penned stage
Speaker 2: play that actually premiered in nineteen sixty six at the
Speaker 2: ethel Merriman Theater. Within a year, it had been transformed
Speaker 2: into its first adaptations, first separate adaptation. That was a
Speaker 2: film adaptation directed by Terrence Young, starring Audrey Hepburn and
Speaker 2: mister Allan Arkin. And there are some other people in there.
Speaker 2: But really this is a two hander. It's a two
Speaker 2: hander with a bunch of peripheral characters. HP. Had you
Speaker 2: seen the film of Wait Until Dark prior to the
Speaker 2: production we're discussing today.
Speaker 3: I did not. I saw Wait Until Dark the movie
Speaker 3: much much later. I want to say I probably saw
Speaker 3: it within the last fifteen years, not which is a
Speaker 3: long time, but relatively speaking, that we're talking nineteen eighty
Speaker 3: two was when the HBO taped version of it was, so, yeah,
Speaker 3: it was quite a bit after it. How about yourself.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my introduction to Wait Until Dark was the theatrical
Speaker 2: production we're discussing today. Before we go any further, I
Speaker 2: want to mention that everything we're going to be discussing
Speaker 2: here on cable box theater will be available for free
Speaker 2: to the public in one form or another. In this case,
Speaker 2: you're going to want to head to YouTube. You're going
Speaker 2: to want to type in Wait until Dark Stacy Keach
Speaker 2: After that that'll do. That'll bring you to this particular production. HP.
Speaker 2: If you had to summarize the plot of Wait Until Dark,
Speaker 2: how would you do that?
Speaker 3: So it's pretty easy to summarize. We have the protagonist
Speaker 3: as a blind woman, the newly blind. I don't think
Speaker 3: she was had an accident that rendered her blind. She
Speaker 3: has a husband who came back from a business trip
Speaker 3: with a doll that was given to him under mysterious circumstances.
Speaker 3: This doll is filled with drugs heroin, and the people
Speaker 3: who want it back devise a plan by which they're
Speaker 3: gonna use khanmen to try and convince her that her
Speaker 3: husband is involved in some shady dealings. This is all
Speaker 3: in an effort, a plot to convince her to give
Speaker 3: them the doll before the husband is aware of what's happened.
Speaker 3: And this is she's not nearly as helpless as they
Speaker 3: think she is, and that's where the story goes.
Speaker 2: You can go ahead and spoil it listen. Actually, speaking
Speaker 2: of spoilers, and I did mention where you can see
Speaker 2: these things, but we are going to be spoiling the
Speaker 2: fuck out of everything we're talking about here. In a
Speaker 2: case like this, which is all predicated on mystery. This
Speaker 2: is a mystery thriller. You're gonna want to seek it
Speaker 2: out if spoiling is a problem for you, because because
Speaker 2: here we go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is your last chance to see it. If
Speaker 3: you want, pause the podcast right now, go to YouTube,
Speaker 3: watch it, then come back and listen to us chop
Speaker 3: it up. Okay, so this is your last chance. Go Okay,
Speaker 3: we're back. Let's talk about this. Spot them alone, Let's go
Speaker 3: for it.
Speaker 2: Oh, let's go for it. Okay, So okay, Now I
Speaker 2: had seen this stage production on television like you did.
Speaker 2: I'm sure it was on a lot.
Speaker 3: I think part of the charm of these televised plays is,
Speaker 3: and I believe you made this point on one of
Speaker 3: your weekly roundups, which is there wasn't a lot. There
Speaker 3: was a lot of air time to fill on these
Speaker 3: cable networks and not a lot of content fill it.
Speaker 3: So this was one of those things. It was an
Speaker 3: easy way to fill time in a given day, right,
Speaker 3: just videotape a performance of a play and just there
Speaker 3: you go, you slap it up there. So it was
Speaker 3: on a lot, But I can't say that as a
Speaker 3: nine year old, I actually sat there and watched it
Speaker 3: from start to finish. I would usually turn on HBO.
Speaker 3: There's Stacy Keach doing his thing, there's Catherine Ross. I
Speaker 3: didn't have a lot of context, but I just remember
Speaker 3: the look of it, the stage set with the stairs.
Speaker 3: It's iconic. But I honestly don't think I really followed
Speaker 3: the plot much as a nine year old. Did you?
Speaker 3: I would assume you, being much more refined in your
Speaker 3: viewing habits, did you watch it all the way through
Speaker 3: as a kid.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, multiple times, over and over and over again.
Speaker 2: This felt like a suppressed memory when I re encountered it.
Speaker 2: The image of Stacy Keach in an all white suit
Speaker 2: during a dark out sequence which the last act of
Speaker 2: this play, part of it takes place in total darkness,
Speaker 2: and although not obviously total darkness on stage, just a
Speaker 2: hint of light, but certainly he shines through the darkness
Speaker 2: in his white suits. I certainly remembered that there were
Speaker 2: aspects of his performance that I had not remembered, and
Speaker 2: we're certainly either we're certainly going to get to that
Speaker 2: interesting choices. I remember really enjoying this production as a child.
Speaker 2: I felt like it was like, somehow a version of
Speaker 2: Hitchcock that was available to young me. I felt like
Speaker 2: it was because all you kept ever hearing about thrillers
Speaker 2: and mysteries was fucking Hitchcock and how he had done
Speaker 2: it all, and it was already done. But here was
Speaker 2: this thing that was live and breathing on the television
Speaker 2: in our home that was new. I didn't know there
Speaker 2: was a history with it being a readaptation of a film,
Speaker 2: but I certainly really liked the production a lot. Upon
Speaker 2: rewatch of both of the film and this adaptation, I
Speaker 2: have come to a conclusion, which is I don't really
Speaker 2: like way it until.
Speaker 3: Well, it's interesting that you say that, because I still
Speaker 3: really enjoy it. I watched the movie again and I
Speaker 3: watched this production to prepare, and I will say I
Speaker 3: enjoyed it. But and maybe this is what you're getting at.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of suspension of this belief required to
Speaker 3: watch this. It's not necessarily the most believable scenario. If
Speaker 3: I am these nefarious characters and I want to get
Speaker 3: this doll back from a blind woman, there's a lot
Speaker 3: easier ways to do it than concocting this convoluted scheme
Speaker 3: with multiple characters, people playing different characters, walking in, coming out.
Speaker 3: It's I decided very early on that that's the mode
Speaker 3: you have to be in to watch this. And once
Speaker 3: I decided to do that, I had a great time.
Speaker 3: I was on the edge of my seat. I thought
Speaker 3: it was really entertaining. But you just have to accept
Speaker 3: the fact that they're going they're taking the long way home. Right.
Speaker 2: Knowing what we know about criminal element, particularly with the
Speaker 2: character we're given here, Harry wrote, if this play film
Speaker 2: any iteration of it has produced anything. It's the fantastic
Speaker 2: character of Harry wrote who in the film version, portrayed
Speaker 2: by Alan Arkin, portrayed as a psychotic beatnik, a very
Speaker 2: subdued psychotic beatnik, very low talking, very measured performance.
Speaker 3: He's menace personified for me in the movie. It's because
Speaker 3: maybe younger listeners to this podcast might know him. He's
Speaker 3: not necessarily known for his bad guy roles.
Speaker 2: Right, He was primarily known for comedies Yeah right.
Speaker 3: Miss Sunshine. More recently The in Laws. I think he
Speaker 3: was in with Peter falk Right, of course, the Return
Speaker 3: of Captain Invincible, which is one of our personal favorites.
Speaker 3: To see him in such he really is scary in
Speaker 3: this role. To see him in such an nefarious evil
Speaker 3: role is a revelation for me even now rewatching it,
Speaker 3: I said, why I forgot how really good he is?
Speaker 2: You know, Yeah, I've always been a mind of that.
Speaker 2: The quiet villain is the scariest villain, and so his
Speaker 2: choices all through that performance are fucking great because he
Speaker 2: never really he loses it at the end because it's
Speaker 2: necessary to lose it by the end, but he maintains
Speaker 2: control until that last moment. He is wearing his sunglasses
Speaker 2: until he's doused in chemicals in the dark. He's a
Speaker 2: cool cucumber. Now to your point about the stuff that
Speaker 2: you have to suspend disbelief on the point I was
Speaker 2: making is that given a character like Harry, he would
Speaker 2: immediately go into that house and knock her out or
Speaker 2: stab her to death and then ransack the place and
Speaker 2: find the down leave. That's what would have happened.
Speaker 3: The only hole in that theory is that they don't
Speaker 3: know where the doll is. She doesn't know where the
Speaker 3: doll is. No one knows where it is until about
Speaker 3: three quarters of the way through the play. So I
Speaker 3: could see him breaking in, killing her whatever, disabling her
Speaker 3: in some way, but he's still not going to be
Speaker 3: able to find the doll. And that's I guess that's
Speaker 3: where the scheme comes in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it just seems a lot of machinations and it
Speaker 2: seems a lot of costumes in order to convince a
Speaker 2: blind woman you're somebody else.
Speaker 3: There is because he portrays a man aggrieved by his
Speaker 3: wife who they portray as cheating on her husband with
Speaker 3: and then he also plays that gentleman's father who comes
Speaker 3: in and up ends the whole place. But to me,
Speaker 3: that's a delight. In this case, we'll get to the
Speaker 3: eighty two production, But in terms of the movie, it's
Speaker 3: a delight for me because Alan Arkin is just so
Speaker 3: good in every iteration of Harry wrote we get to
Speaker 3: see because they're throwing everything but the kitchen sink at
Speaker 3: this blind woman, trying to convince her of this thing
Speaker 3: going down and keech, I shouldn't short change Stacy Heach
Speaker 3: because he's great in a similar way that he has
Speaker 3: to do the same things. He has to pretend to
Speaker 3: be different characters. He's got to try and convince this
Speaker 3: woman of the veracity of his story. But again it's hard.
Speaker 3: He's very much in Alan Arkin's shadow through the whole production.
Speaker 2: I think, I think if you didn't have Alan Arkin
Speaker 2: in that movie, it wouldn't be much of a movie
Speaker 2: on it. Agreed, and God bless them. We all love
Speaker 2: Andrey Hepburn, but she's a little too austere for playing
Speaker 2: the mousey, newly blinded housewife of a struggling photographer in
Speaker 2: a Greenwich Village basement apartment.
Speaker 3: I didn't mind that as much because it gave me
Speaker 3: more sympathy because I felt like she because she seemed
Speaker 3: worldly and refined that it was much more of a
Speaker 3: loss for her to lose her sight. The issue that
Speaker 3: I had with her performance might have just been the
Speaker 3: tenor of acting at that time. I just found her
Speaker 3: at times overly hysterical and overly you know, just laying
Speaker 3: it out there, you know, a little more reservation I
Speaker 3: think might might have improved it a little bit. But again,
Speaker 3: you know, acting means and modes change with the decades,
Speaker 3: and I think that was just more appropriate for that
Speaker 3: movie at that time.
Speaker 2: Would you say that she was better or worse than
Speaker 2: Catherine Ross in the same role.
Speaker 3: I would say I liked I enjoyed her performance better.
Speaker 3: I somehow I found her more believable. My issue with
Speaker 3: excuse me, my issue with Catherine Ross was it was
Speaker 3: a decent performance, but it was almost too measured in
Speaker 3: in how she conveyed the character A little bit. I
Speaker 3: wanted a little bit more. Maybe a little more hysterics
Speaker 3: might have been more interesting to me, because she is
Speaker 3: in a very scary situation and eventually she finds herself
Speaker 3: in but it was a little too guarded, I think.
Speaker 2: So what is the middle ground between Audrey Hepburn and
Speaker 2: Catherine Ross where one is too hysterical and one is
Speaker 2: not hysterical enough.
Speaker 3: I don't know. What do you you mean an actress
Speaker 3: who might have bridged the gas?
Speaker 2: Yes, hmmm, Angie Dickinson. Angie Dickinson, she could have done it.
Speaker 3: She could have done it. I don't know.
Speaker 2: You know it's Angie Dickinson circa nineteen sixty six, like
Speaker 2: when they made the original movie instead of Audrey Hepburn stick,
Speaker 2: Angie Dickinson in that role.
Speaker 3: Could have been interesting, could I don't know. Does she
Speaker 3: have the chops of an Audrey.
Speaker 2: Hepber dare you? Does she have the chops of an
Speaker 2: Audrey Hepburn. She has just as many chops. They go
Speaker 2: to the same chop shop.
Speaker 3: It's hard to She was policewoman, right, Yeah, it wasn't
Speaker 3: exactly taxing her acting ability.
Speaker 2: She's a big bad mama.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're only supporting my point.
Speaker 2: I am not. How dare you I'm saying she shines
Speaker 2: in garbage?
Speaker 3: Oh okay, Well, I guess you raise a good point there.
Speaker 3: I guess probably as good of a choice of an
Speaker 3: actress as one that I can think of right off
Speaker 3: the top of my head.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's agree the only good thing about that movie
Speaker 2: is alan Ark and we'll move on.
Speaker 3: No, that's not true. I will reject that to that assertion.
Speaker 3: The thing the other thing that well, I won't boil
Speaker 3: it down to only these things, but I would say
Speaker 3: another thing that it has over the eighty two production
Speaker 3: is the music.
Speaker 2: Oh well, yeah, music by.
Speaker 3: Henry Mancini is superior.
Speaker 1: In the movie.
Speaker 2: You think that's better than Lalo Schiffrin's attempt in the
Speaker 2: stage production, I do, because versus Shiffrin, I didn't see
Speaker 2: this coming.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I thought Henry Mancini's score was much more innovative.
Speaker 3: He used two pianos, but what was interesting was one
Speaker 3: was tuned four steps below the other. So it creates
Speaker 3: this weird dissonance, this uneasy feeling through the whole picture,
Speaker 3: especially towards the end. And I think that atmosphere was
Speaker 3: brilliantly captured. Not to say that Lalo Schiffrin's score was
Speaker 3: something to sneeze at it. It was fine, it was great,
Speaker 3: but in my opinion, it doesn't compare with the sixty
Speaker 3: seven soundtrack.
Speaker 2: I will just say that they're both pretty great. I
Speaker 2: was not expecting a score for the stage production at all.
Speaker 2: So the fact that we got a good one and
Speaker 2: the fact that it was different made that one special.
Speaker 2: But I completely agree with you about the Mancini scory.
Speaker 2: It is superior and those discordant kind of notes that
Speaker 2: they're jangling on out during the opening sequence. Even I
Speaker 2: had the movie on a couple of times, so at
Speaker 2: one point just had it on in the background and
Speaker 2: I could not focus on what I was doing because
Speaker 2: there was something just stabbing me in the fucking neck.
Speaker 2: It was Henry Mancini.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's like this. It was like ASMR before there
Speaker 3: was such a thing as ASMRI. It kickles this thing
Speaker 3: in your brain that makes you uneasy. By the way,
Speaker 3: did you know that Henry Mancini wrote the theme to
Speaker 3: What's Happening? Do you know that?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: I didn't know that either. I just found out. How
Speaker 3: cool is that?
Speaker 2: It's absurd?
Speaker 3: It's absurd. Anyway, we can move on. So, yeah, I
Speaker 3: thought the music was superior. In the sixty seven version.
Speaker 3: We talked about Alan Arkin.
Speaker 2: I'll say this about the movie. The movie is seems
Speaker 2: more sent bound than the stage production filmed on videotype.
Speaker 3: That's exactly what I was about to say Botom alone,
Speaker 3: it was much it was if by that you mean
Speaker 3: it was more claustrophobic and more, you know, more you
Speaker 3: felt more closed in. I think the movie did a
Speaker 3: better job than that, but it's only it only makes
Speaker 3: sense because you have the ability to have, you know,
Speaker 3: different lenses to focus in on framing of cast and
Speaker 3: everything like that. It's harder to do that. I'll get
Speaker 3: that with a stage production. And also given the fact
Speaker 3: that the stage production is the original, we can't forget
Speaker 3: that this movie was an adaptation. Like you said, so,
Speaker 3: yeah it was. I found it a little more effective
Speaker 3: in that sense. But the set is the set. It's iconic.
Speaker 3: When you see that the curtain come up on that
Speaker 3: eighty two production, it's you know where everything is because
Speaker 3: that's it. I'm sure it's clearly written in the stage
Speaker 3: directions and everything where everything needs to be. But that
Speaker 3: staircase coming down the middle, the windows off to the
Speaker 3: to stage right, that's all brilliant that it's wonderfully captured
Speaker 3: in both cases.
Speaker 2: Oh, I agree with all of that, But by set bound,
Speaker 2: I meant that the film production looks like they filmed
Speaker 2: it on a fucking set. It seems like they're they're
Speaker 2: in a studio somewhere.
Speaker 3: I could see that it is a little bit artificial.
Speaker 2: They got a couple of hiccup shots that may or
Speaker 2: may not be on the streets of New York. There's
Speaker 2: an Amsterdam thing and an airport thing at the beginning,
Speaker 2: or rather a Montreal or some Canadian location. But once,
Speaker 2: once we get to that set, it's just a fucking set.
Speaker 2: It feels like a set, and then they go out
Speaker 2: onto the back lot.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's but to me, that's almost like a
Speaker 3: nod to the stage origins of the original play.
Speaker 2: Absolutely not. Fuck. You go to the Lower East Side
Speaker 2: fucking film this in a basement apartment. You have the
Speaker 2: ability to do that. It's nineteen sixty six. This is
Speaker 2: the way to do it.
Speaker 3: I didn't mind it. I didn't mind it, but I
Speaker 3: see your point. I just didn't mind it as much
Speaker 3: as you. I didn't mind the artifice of being on
Speaker 3: a set, all right.
Speaker 2: So we're talking about the stage production of Wait Until Dark. Now,
Speaker 2: the stage productions, and we've mentioned Catherine ross is playing
Speaker 2: Susie in this one. Stacy keach Is wrote, and then
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of other people, including David Leisure, who
Speaker 2: is one of the policemen who rushes at the end.
Speaker 2: That he was, of course, Joeysuzu.
Speaker 3: Joe is Suzu. And he was also in that at
Speaker 3: sitcom Empty Nest with Richard Mulligan.
Speaker 2: That's right, and he's one of the Harry Christian is
Speaker 2: an airplane.
Speaker 3: That was see. That was his debut movie role and
Speaker 3: this was his second big role, was Cop number two
Speaker 3: in Wait Until Dark.
Speaker 2: My God, Robin Gamble. He's one of the cops in it.
Speaker 2: He's a recognizable face. He's terrible in this. He's the
Speaker 2: Sergeant Carlino.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, but he lives in the shadow. Let's face
Speaker 3: it is it. Jack Weston played the Carlino And of
Speaker 3: course what do we know Jack Weston from Father Malone,
Speaker 3: The Four Seasons.
Speaker 2: Don't eat in the Mercedes. That's all I have to
Speaker 2: say about Jack Weston.
Speaker 3: Maybe we'll get to that someday, because that's also very
Speaker 3: stage bound.
Speaker 2: Oh, we're definitely getting to that because they've got a
Speaker 2: television series on the way.
Speaker 3: The rest of the cast of the eighty two production,
Speaker 3: I couldn't pick him out of a lineup, but certainly
Speaker 3: it's the It's Stacy Keach. It's Catherine Ross and the
Speaker 3: fellow who played mister Hendrix. His name escapes me, but
Speaker 3: I've seen him in other things. I can't think of
Speaker 3: his name, though.
Speaker 2: He's the senator in Porky's two. The next stays trying
Speaker 2: to get re elected.
Speaker 3: That's right, Edward Winter. You're right, But like you were saying,
Speaker 3: much like sixty seven, this is all about Stacy Keach
Speaker 3: and Katherine Ross. The other the guy who the other
Speaker 3: two confidence men, Mike Tallman and Sergeant carlino Are. I
Speaker 3: couldn't pick them out of a lineup. But it's all
Speaker 3: about Stacy Keach and Catherine Ross.
Speaker 2: Okay, we've already talked about Katherine Ross. I think she's fine.
Speaker 2: I think she's giving a different performance. I think she's
Speaker 2: giving a as you said, a more It's odd because
Speaker 2: in the film version, Audrey Hepburn is over the top
Speaker 2: and Alan Arkin is completely underplaying it, and here in
Speaker 2: the stage production, Katherine Ross is underplaying it and Stacy
Speaker 2: Keach is going way the fuck over the top.
Speaker 3: It's interesting that you put it that way, but you're
Speaker 3: one hundred percent correct, Stacy Keach in this is it's
Speaker 3: much more like my impression initially was he's much more
Speaker 3: of almost like a haughty super villain take on the character.
Speaker 3: He just he's laughing Minigah and just seems so unhappy.
Speaker 3: It's worthy. He seems so what's the words. Yeah, he's
Speaker 3: just over the top, laughing and menacing in a different
Speaker 3: way than Alan Arkin never was.
Speaker 1: I won't give it to you. I won't give it
Speaker 1: to you. I won't give it to you. You remind
Speaker 1: me of somebody else has said that.
Speaker 3: Only She said, I don't know where it is.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 4: So I've heard people say that before, only she was
Speaker 4: much more stubborn.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. It's
Speaker 2: very Caesar Romero's joker.
Speaker 3: It's very joker like, and I did write that down.
Speaker 3: It doesn't go completely over the top until the moment
Speaker 3: that we're driving towards here, but it is very much
Speaker 3: like a joker type thing. Where's he's discussing his plan
Speaker 3: with the other two surrogates and he's so amused by
Speaker 3: himself and by the machinations of the scheme that he's
Speaker 3: come up with, it's almost like he should be like, ha,
Speaker 3: like doing these He doesn't necessarily do that, but he's
Speaker 3: definitely he's not menacing in a quiet way. He's menacing
Speaker 3: in a bellowie, take charge of the room kind of way.
Speaker 3: I don't know how would you describe his performance.
Speaker 2: He's unfortunately missing his patented Mike hammer mustache here because
Speaker 2: this is the perfect time to be twirling it with
Speaker 2: what he's going for. I wonder if he's chosen this
Speaker 2: tack for the character because of how understated Alan Arkin
Speaker 2: was and because, let's face it, that in nineteen eighty two,
Speaker 2: that movie is still fresh in people's minds Arkins performance
Speaker 2: is still sitting there. Stephen King in his book Dance
Speaker 2: maccob has an entire section devoted to this film and
Speaker 2: that was like nineteen eighty and he's describing as one
Speaker 2: of the most horrifying experiences you could see. He's talking
Speaker 2: about a theater where the exit signs were burned out,
Speaker 2: so the entire audience was burned was in total blackness
Speaker 2: during the finale. So I wonder if Keach is going
Speaker 2: he did it so subtly let me just giggle and
Speaker 2: be happy as opposed to quiet and ultimately outwardly menacing.
Speaker 1: Did you know they wanted to kill me?
Speaker 2: I did. I knew it even before they did.
Speaker 4: They were awful images, and that's why you saw threw them.
Speaker 4: The lovely thing was the way I let them set
Speaker 4: it all up. Oh that silliness, A meeting in the
Speaker 4: parking lot, the whole thing.
Speaker 3: They had comic book mind.
Speaker 1: So he did it their way right until the end.
Speaker 3: You would have to think that that was a deliberate
Speaker 3: choice on his part because it is so diametrically opposite
Speaker 3: of what Alan Arkin brought to the role. I mean, he,
Speaker 3: like you said, he's doing everything but twirling his mustache. He's,
Speaker 3: for lack of a better term, he's flouncing about the
Speaker 3: apartment as he's describing his scheme and their role in
Speaker 3: it and how all of this, Whereas Alan Arkin, I think,
Speaker 3: is sitting through the whole analogue that happens in the movie.
Speaker 3: Should we should we get to that moment yet, because
Speaker 3: it's it's hard to keep talking about his performance without
Speaker 3: mentioning the part that goes completely batchet over the top.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's crazy.
Speaker 2: HP, Why are you trying to rest to our finale? Like,
Speaker 2: you know, where do we go after after that moment?
Speaker 3: Because we're dancing around it. Let's all right, let's let's
Speaker 3: back up for a minute. Yes, I would say, he he,
Speaker 3: he must have had that top of mind as he's
Speaker 3: doing this. As I think anyone playing wrote would that
Speaker 3: they're they're kind of in the shadow of Alan Arkin
Speaker 3: because not only is it a definitive performance, but because
Speaker 3: it's committed to celluloid, it's not like a theatrical performance
Speaker 3: or play a lot live theater performance where you just
Speaker 3: have the word of mouth to say, oh, that person
Speaker 3: was really good in that role. People can just pop in,
Speaker 3: they can watch it on TV, they can pop in
Speaker 3: a video cassette or later a DVD. Alan Arkins performance
Speaker 3: is captured forever, so it's only ever as far away
Speaker 3: as your nearest entertainment system.
Speaker 2: Right now available on to be for free.
Speaker 3: Exactly, which I think is one of By the way,
Speaker 3: one of the wonderful things about this series is, as
Speaker 3: Father Malone mentioned, these are all things that you can
Speaker 3: find for free, so enjoy that. That is just it's great.
Speaker 3: It's just so easy. You can hear this and check
Speaker 3: it out anyway. So anyway, my point is, you have
Speaker 3: if you're essaying the role of wrote, you've got to
Speaker 3: figure out a way to separate yourself from Alan Arkins performance.
Speaker 3: And I think that's exactly what he did here, because
Speaker 3: even though he begins, maybe in a little bit of
Speaker 3: an homage to Row, he starts out with the glasses,
Speaker 3: doesn't he comes in with sunglasses.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, he's completely aping Alan Arkin when he walks through.
Speaker 2: He's meeting everyone's expectations when he walks through the door
Speaker 2: for the first time. Oh here we go, We're gonna
Speaker 2: get some Alan Arkin. Now, I got to say.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 3: We talked about this a little bit beforehand, and I
Speaker 3: mentioned that for me, Stacy Keach's is inseparable from my
Speaker 3: camera because that was on TV when I was a kid.
Speaker 3: That was my first exposure to Stacy Keach. I know
Speaker 3: that he has history as a comic comedic actor. He
Speaker 3: was in Cheech and Chongs, Thy Dreams, He's done a lot.
Speaker 3: He's a very versatile actor. But for me, that's all
Speaker 3: he ever knew him as. So to see him in
Speaker 3: this is to appreciate that the man has range and
Speaker 3: he can play a lot of different types of roles,
Speaker 3: not just the hard boiled detective and not just the
Speaker 3: clueless cop. He's really he's actually very good in this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this was my first exposure to mister Keach, and
Speaker 2: then on the heels of this, it was as you mentioned,
Speaker 2: Chiechen Chong's Nice Dreams. So for me, Stacy Keach has
Speaker 2: always had range because he went from this terrifying performance
Speaker 2: to this ineffectual bumbling he's been up and smoke as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's really. As I was watching this, I actually
Speaker 3: was thinking the older Stacy Keach I think might have
Speaker 3: actually made if they ever made a live action Dark
Speaker 3: Knight Returns. I think he might have actually made a
Speaker 3: pretty good older Bruce Wayne.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, absolutely, if they had made in nineteen
Speaker 2: eighty eight. Yeah, yeah, he.
Speaker 3: Had the right He had the right build for it,
Speaker 3: he had the right look. Either that or even he
Speaker 3: actually might have even made a good Jim Gordon also
Speaker 3: because he does look like Commissioner Gordon a little bit
Speaker 3: with when he had white hair, but he had the build.
Speaker 3: He was stocky, a little wide. But yeah, to see
Speaker 3: him in this and to rewatch this after so many
Speaker 3: years gave me a new appreciation for how good he was,
Speaker 3: Like I said, because I in my mind he was
Speaker 3: already type cast as a hard boiled detective.
Speaker 2: You want to see a fantastic performance of Stacy Keach
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy two, The Life and Times of Judge roy Bean,
Speaker 2: starring Paul Newman. Paul Newman is horrifically miscast in the role.
Speaker 2: John Millius wrote that movie, and Wow, Stacy Keach shows
Speaker 2: up as a character named Bad Bob who is an
Speaker 2: albino gunfighter, and it must be seen to be believed.
Speaker 2: Stacy Keach sounds Stacy Keach is fucking fantastic. He seems
Speaker 2: down for anything. He didn't ever seem bound by any
Speaker 2: genre or medium. He fluidly going between television and movies
Speaker 2: his entire life, and always a solid performance. All I
Speaker 2: can say is, mister Keach, we love you.
Speaker 3: He's really good. Like I said, I'm so glad to
Speaker 3: have seen this and rekindled my admiration for the man.
Speaker 3: He's really good.
Speaker 2: Oh boy, let's talk about mister Keach's biggest choice in
Speaker 2: this play now. In the regular play, as HP has mentioned, wrote,
Speaker 2: his compatriot Lisa, who has smuggled the drugs and it's
Speaker 2: not a compatriot at all. He was there to kill
Speaker 2: her at the airport, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what motivates her to give up the doll
Speaker 3: because she gets off the plane. In the movie, she
Speaker 3: sees him waiting for him on the tarmac or whatever,
Speaker 3: and in a panic, she hustles over to this guy
Speaker 3: getting off a plane who is Susie's husband, gives him
Speaker 3: a sob story about I got to get this to
Speaker 3: a kid at the hospital. He takes the doll, and
Speaker 3: then she gets intercepted by Wrote and eventually murdered by him.
Speaker 2: Right and yeah. In both versions, when Sergeant Carlino and
Speaker 2: other guy are in the apartment with Wrote, they make
Speaker 2: the discovery that a rote has already placed the body
Speaker 2: of Susie or not Susie placed the body of Lisa,
Speaker 2: who was the drug mule, into the closet there. Right,
Speaker 2: That's the last we hear or really see of Lisa
Speaker 2: other than as dialogue for the rest of the thing.
Speaker 2: She doesn't really come back up, and certainly Alan Arkin
Speaker 2: doesn't really lean into what he did to her at
Speaker 2: all at the end of that film. But here in
Speaker 2: this adaptation, while the finale is going down, the finale
Speaker 2: involves wrote he's killed both of his partners in this.
Speaker 2: They're both dead now, and he's alone with Susie in
Speaker 2: the apartment. He's chained the door and he intends to
Speaker 2: get that doll. Susie has turned the tables on him,
Speaker 2: knocked out all the lights, but now he's got in
Speaker 2: the upper hand again and by opening the refrigerator. That's
Speaker 2: how it ends anyway. But before that, while he's interrogating her,
Speaker 2: alone with her in the apartment, and she knows he's
Speaker 2: got the knife, and he's got a thing of gasoline
Speaker 2: and he's taunting her. Stacy Keats has decided to open
Speaker 2: up Lisa's purse that he has kept missus wrote she's
Speaker 2: referred to. And then he proceeds to put on makeup
Speaker 2: during his monologue and dialogue with Susie, which the think
Speaker 2: of this one HP.
Speaker 3: And it's not even it's not even just that he's
Speaker 3: putting on makeup, but he's putting it on in a
Speaker 3: very exaggerated fashion, like the lipstick is big and smeary
Speaker 3: on his lips, He puts rouge on. He even produces
Speaker 3: an ear ring and puts an earring on. What the disconnect.
Speaker 3: That's weird enough as it is, but as he's doing this,
Speaker 3: he is basically describing, almost beat for beat, how he
Speaker 3: murdered Lisa, this woman Lisa, and what she was saying
Speaker 3: to him, and she was begging for her life. And
Speaker 3: I had to I watched it, and then later I
Speaker 3: had to go back and rewatch just that scene because
Speaker 3: I was watching it really late for the first time,
Speaker 3: and I had to say, did I hallucinate that? Did
Speaker 3: I dream that Stacy Keach was applying makeup grossly while
Speaker 3: he is basically taunting this woman and threatening to murder her.
Speaker 3: And there it is, And it's such a weird, weird
Speaker 3: it's an inexplicable choice, but it's such an indelible image
Speaker 3: to me that, honestly, like, I can forget everything else
Speaker 3: about this production, but this will stick with me because
Speaker 3: it's so out of left field and so jarring as
Speaker 3: a tableau. That's happening is anything I've seen in these
Speaker 3: sort of cable plays. I don't know what was going
Speaker 3: through your mind as you're watching this play out foam.
Speaker 2: It reminded me that that image that I had carried
Speaker 2: in my head of Stacy Keach since childhood. The one
Speaker 2: of him in the white suit also included glistening lipstick
Speaker 2: as he was lunging. I was shocked that I had
Speaker 2: forgotten about this, but then I had forgotten a good
Speaker 2: portion of it. But certainly yeah, inexplicable. Let's explicit now
Speaker 2: is the choice here that Harry wrote will recount his
Speaker 2: murders and put on trophies of his victims and assume
Speaker 2: their identity for a moment. Is this a common thing?
Speaker 2: Because here's the thing the psychopath wrote that Alan Arkin
Speaker 2: gives us. Is that low key psychopath here we mentioned
Speaker 2: the joker. This is a lunatic performance of his, like,
Speaker 2: once this makeup has gone on, he's way the fuck
Speaker 2: over the top. I'm not saying it's a bad performance.
Speaker 2: It's a good performance. It's just I'm wondering if he
Speaker 2: has made that choice that that's what he's doing, or
Speaker 2: has he decided that wrote is has some sort of
Speaker 2: dissociative sort of situation, or what I think is more
Speaker 2: likely than anything, This production comes on the heels of
Speaker 2: Brian de Palm was Dressed to kill, which had made
Speaker 2: a huge stir with a transvestite villain or transsexual villain.
Speaker 3: For me, I think you would have to. I don't
Speaker 3: think it's some indication that the character is gay or
Speaker 3: anything like that. I don't think it's that thought through.
Speaker 3: It feels it's I don't know. I read somewhere. I
Speaker 3: know actors they love props. They love to have business
Speaker 3: to do while they're delivering lines. It could be somebody
Speaker 3: lighting a cigarette, rolling a cigarette and lighting it as
Speaker 3: part of their whatever. I think this was partially just
Speaker 3: because actors like to do stuff with their hands and
Speaker 3: have business while they're delivering lines. And I think for
Speaker 3: this was just yet another way for him to differentiate
Speaker 3: himself from the Alan Arkin version of wrote this is
Speaker 3: so unexpected and like I said, so indelible that it's
Speaker 3: a shocking choice. But here we are still talking about
Speaker 3: it's forty somewhad years later, so it's interesting. What I
Speaker 3: would be curious about is, let me ask you, have
Speaker 3: you ever seen any other productions of Weight until Dark?
Speaker 3: Is there anything approaching the weirdness of this moment.
Speaker 2: I've not seen it produced with this choice for Rote
Speaker 2: as a character. This is an actor's choice or director's choice,
Speaker 2: because this isn't in the book of the play. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the thing is scene through the lens of today's current
Speaker 2: sexual lens. This is beyond problematic, but is I just
Speaker 2: don't understand the intent behind it to comment on it
Speaker 2: other than it's weird and nicky and maybe not the
Speaker 2: best choice.
Speaker 3: Certainly, as you said, and with two modern viewers, it's
Speaker 3: definitely problematic or only hints at how weird and awful
Speaker 3: it is and squishy it is, but it's I don't know.
Speaker 3: I again, he's good as Rote, but he swings too
Speaker 3: far in the manic jokery, giggly, having way too much
Speaker 3: fun with this psychopathic role. That's that's why Alan Arkin
Speaker 3: will always be more effective, because he does way more
Speaker 3: with way less. It's hard to imagine Arkin making a
Speaker 3: similar choice with his version of the character.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think he had any evil intent in
Speaker 2: his heart. I don't think he was trying to punch down.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, it's maybe one for the
Speaker 2: dust bin. He's certainly scary. He frightened me. Look, here's
Speaker 2: the thing. If you're comparing this to the original film,
Speaker 2: there is no comparison in performances. Alan Arkan is just
Speaker 2: fucking terrifying and completely believable, and Keach leans into cartoonishness
Speaker 2: from time to time, and a lot of times it
Speaker 2: feels like, as we've mentioned, just a way to differentiate
Speaker 2: his performance from Arkins, and it just feels like you
Speaker 2: don't need to go that hard. But as it turns out,
Speaker 2: we have an actual answer, right we do.
Speaker 3: This was an interview that Stacy Keach did with the
Speaker 3: Seattle Gay News in April two thousand and nine. The
Speaker 3: question was put to him by the interviewer. He says,
Speaker 3: towards the end of the interviewer says, and wait until
Speaker 3: dark with Catherine Ross. Towards the end of the show,
Speaker 3: your character pulls out lipstick and a feminine handkerchief, implying
Speaker 3: transvested behavior. What inspired that interpretation and Keats's response is
Speaker 3: interesting and it lines up with what you were saying earlier.
Speaker 3: Favl alone, I thought it would be dramatic. This character
Speaker 3: had power over her and yet she couldn't see him,
Speaker 3: but the audience could see me. I thought I'd show
Speaker 3: a duality, something theatric and dramatic. Plus it was something
Speaker 3: to distinguish my interpretation of a role that was so
Speaker 3: well done in the movie. So there you go. That's
Speaker 3: exactly what we.
Speaker 2: Thought, did Quentin Tarantino go that hard in two thousand
Speaker 2: and one when he took over the role.
Speaker 3: I can't imagine anything more horrifying in a different way
Speaker 3: than seeing Quentin Tarantino play the role of Rote, because
Speaker 3: on his best day, the man is nowhere near the
Speaker 3: actor that I have. Either of these gentlemen are at
Speaker 3: Arkin or Keach?
Speaker 2: And I remember you have you not seen on the radio?
Speaker 3: Sh it's terror? I don't need to, because I've seen
Speaker 3: all of his bit roles in all of his movies,
Speaker 3: all the cameos that he does. But and I remember
Speaker 3: when he got that part yet in that production of
Speaker 3: Weight Until Dark, and it was it's stun casting. Let's
Speaker 3: call it what it is. I would not have put
Speaker 3: it past him, being flamboyant and his choices to do
Speaker 3: something like that, but I would. It would have surprised
Speaker 3: me to no end if any of the other wrotes
Speaker 3: throughout the play's history have done anything close to that.
Speaker 3: But I guess in some way you could you could
Speaker 3: just mark that as another bit of fearlessness from Stacy Keach.
Speaker 3: The man doesn't care. He wanted to put his own
Speaker 3: stamp on the role, and by God, that's exactly what
Speaker 3: he did. Whether it stands the test of time as
Speaker 3: far as sensitivity is where that's what we're discussing, but
Speaker 3: it's certainly his own. No one can't stay.
Speaker 2: Different, right, That is one way to describe it. Do
Speaker 2: you recommend people go watch this?
Speaker 3: I do, I do, but I think it's very worthwhile.
Speaker 3: I'm such a fan of live theater anyway. I guess
Speaker 3: people should understand that going in. I think we both are.
Speaker 3: And this is such a great opportunity for us to relive,
Speaker 3: recapture the sort of wonder of these shows. And this
Speaker 3: is a great example of that because I don't get
Speaker 3: out to as much live theater as i'd like to,
Speaker 3: and that's what these shows did so well. They brought
Speaker 3: the theatrical performance to your living room, and that's that's
Speaker 3: what I got from this as well. It was fun.
Speaker 3: It was like watching a live performance. And the performances
Speaker 3: are all at a minimum, they're decent. Some of them
Speaker 3: are better than others. But I thoroughly enjoyed it. What
Speaker 3: did you think? What was your experience watching them?
Speaker 2: After all these years, you know, we've been getting a
Speaker 2: glut of live productions on television. These days, whether it's
Speaker 2: re enactments of old episodes of sitcoms or hey, it's
Speaker 2: Grease Live, Rocky Horror Live. And I understand the resurgence
Speaker 2: and popularity. And it speaks to what you said, which
Speaker 2: is it's nice to be able to sit at home
Speaker 2: and view professionals doing the thing and something that you
Speaker 2: might not have gotten a chance to go out and
Speaker 2: spend one hundred and fifty dollars to sit in the
Speaker 2: back row. But I will say that this is the
Speaker 2: way I prefer it. This is a film will a
Speaker 2: tape of a production going on on stage, where it
Speaker 2: seems like all of the recent television versions are just
Speaker 2: attempts to make movies in real time. They're very impressionistic,
Speaker 2: and they have lots of sets and moving parts and
Speaker 2: the cameras always and this is like sitting in the
Speaker 2: audience and watching a stage production. So that's what I
Speaker 2: like most about it. I still don't like Wait Until Dark.
Speaker 2: I think it's mediocre at best. I think Frederick Nott,
Speaker 2: who wrote it, he also wrote dial M for Murder,
Speaker 2: and I think that is far superior. There's a reason
Speaker 2: they keep redoubtedly they keep remaking dial M for Murder
Speaker 2: which they've done two or three times now. Not so
Speaker 2: much this wait until dark business. Although it's ripe for
Speaker 2: a redo, right and they fire up the NBC engine.
Speaker 3: There's rifts on it. I think. I remember years ago
Speaker 3: Victoria Principal did a TV movie where she was a
Speaker 3: blind woman, and not exactly the same thing, but I
Speaker 3: think there's been rifts on it. By the way, one
Speaker 3: of my one of my favorite movie experiences was seeing
Speaker 3: dial m from Murder in the original three D at
Speaker 3: in Brookline at.
Speaker 2: The Foolage Corner.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was fantastic, but anyway, yeah, and I agree.
Speaker 3: I was actually encouraged when George Clooney think with spearheading
Speaker 3: this notion of doing live performances on television. He did
Speaker 3: a failsafe was the thing that I remember most. He
Speaker 3: might have done one or two others I don't recall,
Speaker 3: but I thought the attempt is noble enough in my mind,
Speaker 3: because you just don't see these anything like this much anymore.
Speaker 3: To your point, it's usually, let's redo an episode of
Speaker 3: different strokes or facts of life or all in the family,
Speaker 3: and that's fine. I watch those and I enjoy them,
Speaker 3: but there's usually some attempt to gust see them up
Speaker 3: for a modern audience. To your point, there's nothing for
Speaker 3: me like seeing just a videotaped performance of a theatrical
Speaker 3: play played from start to finish, no artifice, no crazy
Speaker 3: editing or camera tricks, just the actors doing their thing.
Speaker 3: I agree, like a good.
Speaker 2: Old playhouse ninety. All right, that's we're gonna wrap this
Speaker 2: one up here. Thank you all for listening, all you patrons.
Speaker 2: This is a patron on the episode. I know I
Speaker 2: introduced it as the sort of inaugural one where we're
Speaker 2: sharing it with everybody, but that's actually not the case.
Speaker 2: This is just for you guys. Thank you all for listening.
Speaker 2: Keep subscribing or something I don't know, get more subscribers, HP.
Speaker 2: Where can these other people find you?
Speaker 3: Oh? You can find me. I co host the podcast
Speaker 3: called Night Mister Walters, a taxi podcast with yourself. Of course.
Speaker 3: I also am producing new episodes of another podcast called
Speaker 3: Noise Junkies, which is a music podcast. Please check that
Speaker 3: out as well. I'm an occasional guest on the Culture
Speaker 3: Cast with Chris Stashu. Enjoy that, and I have a
Speaker 3: band camp site called Hpmusicplease dot bandcamp dot com.
Speaker 2: As for me, I'm not going to give you the
Speaker 2: Patreon thing. You're already here, but keep listening to Midnight Viewing.
Speaker 2: We're on there twice a week, you know that. Monday's
Speaker 2: Father Malone's Weekly round Up with Ripley Gene, and then
Speaker 2: Fridays or Thursdays or whenever the fuck I feel like it,
Speaker 2: well put out either Horror Anthology podcast with Towns from
Speaker 2: the dark Side I Do with Christashu and mister Mike
Speaker 2: White from the Projection Booth and Anthology's Attack with Antonio Lapour.
Speaker 2: There's too many shows, and it's all for you, all
Speaker 2: for you Patreon, and then I dive off with the
Speaker 2: news on my neck. Remember Damien, anyway.
Speaker 3: Give till it hurts people support, support.
Speaker 2: No, they're already supporting. Thank you guys, Thank you everybody.
Speaker 2: We'll talk to you next time.
Speaker 4: I played Harry Road Junior in the script and he
Speaker 4: was He's a monster. He's a statistic, drug ridden psychopath.
Speaker 4: I think playing heavy is liberating if you have a
Speaker 4: lot of rage and negativity in you that you want
Speaker 4: to xpia and I'm afraid to do in your own life.
Speaker 4: I have my problems like everybody does, but I don't
Speaker 4: think that's one of them. It wasn't liberating for me.
Speaker 4: In fact, I don't think anybody was terribly happy with
Speaker 4: what I was doing. For a long time, I had
Speaker 4: a plan for this guy, and that was that he
Speaker 4: gets unleashed the first time he pulls an iphon somebody,
Speaker 4: which was weeks into the shooting of the film I
Speaker 4: was playing him. Was what looked like him being a
Speaker 4: kind of a laid back guy, but it wasn't laid back,
Speaker 4: like a snake being laid back. He's just waiting for
Speaker 4: an opportunity. He was on every conceivable drug known demand,
Speaker 4: and they were all kind of counteracting each other, so
Speaker 4: he was in a state of negative neutrality. I remember
Speaker 4: that for like two minutes after I pulled a knife
Speaker 4: for the first time in the script, everybody breathed a
Speaker 4: sigh of relief, and everybody's, oh, yeah, okay, we see
Speaker 4: what he's doing. Now it starts to make sense.
Speaker 2: Sa