Movie Reviews
 |
Reform School Girls (1986) Rating:   (2.5 out of 5)Starring: Wendy O. Williams, Pat Ast, Linda Carol, and Sybil Danning.
Directed by: Tom DeSimone.
Reform School Girls followed a revival of the women in prison genre in the early 1980s. Well,
at least a revival in the American market - the genre basically was going strong in Italy and
elsewhere throughout the 1970s. But in the United States, after a spate of exploitation WiP
movies following the release of The Big Doll House in 1971, the genre sort of petered out after
1974's Caged Heat. Then in 1982, Tom DeSimone made The Concrete Jungle and the
following year saw Chained Heat released. Hellhole came in the 1985. By the early 1980s,
drive ins were definitely on the way out, but these movies got theatrical releases. The genre then
faded out before again being revived for the DTV market. The early 1970s cycle was generally
light and campy; it played off the melodramatic tone of the 1950s and 1960s "girls in trouble"
and juvenile delinquent movies. The 1980s cycle was much darker and harder-edged, much
closer to the Euro-sleaze version of the genre made by folks like Jess Franco. Reform School
Girls is both part of that darker 1980s cycle and a satire of the genre. It works, on the whole, but
is definitely too grim in parts to sustain the satirical elements.
At one level, DeSimone deserves create for his approach. A lot of "satire" ends up being just
lame jokes, camp for the sake of camp, and lots of mugging for the camera. DeSimone doesn't
go in for that. Instead, he takes a perfectly straight-forward women in prison formula and just
tweaks it up a bit, until the intention is both clear and subtle. Sure the movie is nothing more
than a collection of cliches, but it is deliberate collection of cliches. And yes, the movie is
uniformly over-the-top, but it is deliberately over-the-top. If you've only seen a few women in
prison movie, this one will just seem like the same old same old, but anyone who has seen more
than a few will recognize this for what it is. Now at some level, DeSimone's approach is a cop-out, it is both a typical WiP movie, and satire of the genre. It does not seem to commit to either
approach, but why does it need to? Isn't it more interesting precisely because it is possible to
appreciate the movie on two levels? By appreciate, I don't mean respect or like necessarily, I
just mean appreciate in the dictionary definition: "To recognize the quality, significance, or
magnitude of."
Some parts of the movie are very nicely done. I like the paint-by-numbers approach of the
beginning. We see good girl (more or less) Jenny Williams (Linda Carol) getting caught up in a
robbery by her no-good boyfriend. We see her sentenced to juvie by a harsh judge who has the
shadow of a gallows over his face. On the way to detention, we meet two other girls - Lisa
(Sherri Stoner) and Nicky (Laurie Schwartz). Lisa is the wilting flower, the fragile prisoner who
goes to lock-up clutching a stuffed bunny. Nicky is a tough chick, coming back for a second
incarceration. The girls arrive at Pridemore reform school. They immediate are told to strip and
shower and warned that they will be inspected, inside and out. Oooh la la. Then they get
deloused with DDT. Then they meet Edna (Pat Ast), the head matron, who is 300 lbs of mean.
And finally, when sent to the dorm, they immediately have a run-in with Queen Bee Charlie
(Wendy O. Williams) over who will get the top bunk. In short order, we'll also meet Sutter
(Sybil Danning), the distant, leather-clad warden who is more than happy to let Edna abuse
the inmates as long as she keeps order, and Dr. Norton (Charlotte McGinnis) the doughty,
bleeding heart shrink who will naively try to help the girls. Seriously, it almost seems like
DeSimone (who also wrote the screenplay) went down a list checking off cliched plot elements.
The movie plays around with the ages of the characters. Stoner was 21 at the time, but looks 14.
Linda Carol was 16, but could pass for 20 (more on that later). But the funny part is Williams,
who was 37... a hard, hard, hard-living 37 and playing the role of juvenile. I mean Williams was
born in the same month as Sybil Danning in 1949, and Danning plays the warden. And just to
stress the point, if you put the two women side-by-side there is no way anyone would assume
Danning was the older of the two.
I don't know much about Wendy O. Williams. I gather she was a former sex worker and the
lead singer of the Plasmatics, which was part of the theatrical branch of punk rock that included
the Sex Pistols rather than the musical branch which included The Ramones, The Clash, and X.
Williams was known for a performing a trick with ping pong balls rarely seen outside of
Bangkok. She was, in short, a freak (I write in the past tense because Williams committed
suicide in 1998). She spends the entire movie in a skimpy bra and g-string, and she definitely
proves the case that a scantily-clad woman with a killer body can somehow be completely
devoid of sex appeal. Still, she's a great Queen Bee, mean, crazy, and physically imposing.
Speaking of skimpy bra and g-string. The movie has some fun what that cliche as well. While
most women in prison movies find convoluted reasons to place the inmates in revealing attire,
Reform School Girls dispenses with the pretense. The bad girls look like they just stepped out of
a Poison video with their lingerie and teased hair. The nice girls get by with perms and tank
tops. The hair-styles alone allow one to mousse date (as opposed to carbon date) this movie to
within a couple of years.
Anyway, it turns out that Jenny is a pretty tough chick. She becomes Lisa's protector. And boy
does Lisa need protection. The first night, she wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold
sweat. She sneaks out of the dorm and to Edna's office to retrieve her stuffed bunny that Edna
has hidden away in her desk drawer. Unfortunately, Edna surprises Lisa, and then forces her to
watch as she torches the bunny. This is actually a decent little scene, just silly enough to be
funny. But it almost immediately leads to the movie's low point. Lisa's anxiety attacks land her
in front of the prison shrink. It turns out that Lisa is a runaway, and that she's in juvie for
escaping from foster homes. She claims she can't tolerate being locked up, and then explains
why. At one home, the foster mother used to lock her and her brother in an old ice box when
they were bad. One day, it was hot, and they were having trouble breathing. Stoner is just too
convincing in telling this story about how her brother suffocates, even as she tries to hold her
breath to save it for him. They took all of her brother's stuff away... except for the bunny...
which Edna has now burned. The bunny part is actually almost amusing in a pathetic way, but
the whole brother story is just too grim for the rest of the material. I mean, you can make a
movie about abusive foster parents and have that as a plot point, but you can't make a movie
about reform school girls filled with cheesecake and over-acting with this kind of story.
Two issues here. One is that satire is hard to get right. In the end, a brother dying in ice box
isn't amusing, it isn't in a laugh out loud kind of way, it isn't in a rueful way, and it isn't even in
an ironic way. Compare it to the bit in Gremlins, where the Phoebe Cates character shares her
sad Christmas story about her dad getting dressed up in a Santa suit and then getting stuck and
dying in the chimney. Now that is amusing and is meant to be. Sick and twisted, but amusing.
The brother story is just heartbreaking. Am I the only one who feels that way?
The second issue is that satire aside, the whole WiP genre is built on rarely acknowledged
connections to common fantasy themes. I mean, yeah, there are some sickies out there who like
to see women suffer, and for them the darker and more grim the tone, the better. But that is not
the main audience. First of all, these movies are almost always designed for mixed audiences -
the drive-in crowd was not just a bunch of raincoaters. But even for the more grindhouse
oriented entries in the genre, the pacing is distinctly non-pornographic. These movies tend to be
about titillation, not satisfaction, if you know what I mean. The common elements - pretty
women locked up and occasionally abused, voyeuristic shower/strip scenes, etc. - are straight
power-domination themes. A lot of men have some power-domination fantasies. I mean, hell, it
is hard to be an adolescent and not have them. You're desperate for some girl's attention and at
that age it is completely in her power whether to grant it. Most men become sexually aware at a
time when they are also essentially powerless. So many men develop some of these fantasies,
and this also explain the cheerleader fetishism, teacher-student stuff, etc. A lot of guys grow out
of it, although these themes have nostalgic appeal regardless, but even those who don't move on
to other fantasy themes rarely tip over into misogyny. And that is the weird paradox... for these
exploitation movies centering around power-domination themes to work, they have to sustain a
tone that is at once grim and playful. When the cross into shrill or misogynist, the movies can
work as horror or gore, but those are different genres and these movies rarely have the other
necessary element to work as those genres.
Anyway, this whole scene in Norton's office casts a pall over the rest of the movie, which is
unfortunate because there are other decent bits here. Back to Lisa. After having her bunny
torched, she gets attacked by Charlie who plans to brand her butt (as a mark of ownership), she
later passes out while working in a field. Happily, Jenny is there to protect her at every turn. But
you know, all of this begins to wear on Jenny, who decides to try to break out. In order to do
this, she plans to seduce "Truck Driver" (Jim Staskel). Staskel is not a great actor - his other
roles include "Transvestite," "Another Man," "2nd Man on Tuna Boat," and "Dealer #2." In five
of his seven movie roles, he plays a character with no name, so you can say he's a bit player.
But anyway, in RSG, he's a civilian who drives the girls to their work details and then drives
home at night. Jenny makes plans to meet up with him. He's waiting in his truck with a bottle
of rum (I think) and lit candles. She offers to show him a good time at a local motel. He offers
to show her a good time in the back of the truck. She gets a promise to take her away out of him
before giving it up, but he rats her out to the gate guard instead.
Jenny is, remember, played by Linda Carol who was 16 at the time. Carol does not look 16.
She's got the physique of a mature woman, if you know what I mean.... Oh heck, I mean she's
got a great rack... which she shows off in several scenes. Her scene with the truck driver is
pretty explicit in terms of dialogue, fondling, and simulated sex. I, um, didn't realize it was
legal for underaged actresses to have this kind of part. I presume it is. I bought my DVD off
Amazon and it was produced by a reputable distributor, so I presume no American laws have
been violated, but it is definitely a rarity.
But anyway, I guess what I want to comment on here is what has been call "fetishizing young
girls" in some parts of the media and academia. The concern is over the sexualization of - and
commercialization of the sex appeal of - such young ladies (in 2004) as the Olsen twins, Lindsey
Lohan, Hilary Duff, and so on. A few years ago, we heard similar anguished concerned about
Britney Spears (circa "...Baby One More Time") and others. Some defenders of this tendency in
American culture claim that Americans, in particular, are just prudes and that throughout history
girls were married off and had children in their mid-teens, and that it an absurd notion that a 16-year old should be treated like a child but that at 18 she suddenly becomes a woman who can
now be lusted after with impunity. Critics, by contrast, claim that this is essentially little more
than a rationalization of pedophilia, and they blame "the Victorians" for sexualizing children by
imagining women as child-like - weak, simple, and frail. There are passionate advocates on both
sides, and their passion on this issue, frankly, strikes me as more than a little creepy, but
whatever. The problem is that this is not a rational discussion in any real sense. For one thing, it
is a highly politicized debate, and the minute politicians get involved, facts and logic seem to fly
out the window. For instance, politicians regularly push for all sorts of restrictive legislation to
battle to scourge of child sexual exploitation. Don't get me wrong. I have no patience for child
porn or any such thing. But the extent of the problem is vastly overstated. The vast majority of
"child sexual exploitation" is 16 and 17-year old runaways. Now, that is a problem, of course.
As I have said before, if I could snap my fingers and end the existence of 16 and 17-year old prostitutes, I would. But
this group is used to pad numbers in order to justify restrictive laws on freedom of speech, to
justify what are essentially entrapment activities, to justify surveillance of American citizens as a
matter of routine and without any probable cause. And all of this is linked to the issue of Linda
Carol in Reform School Girls. I don't particularly want to see naked 16-year olds in movies. It
is unquestionably a little creepy. But ogling Linda Carol in her shower scenes is not pedophilia.
It might be creepy and it might be inappropriate (unless you're 16 too, of course) but it isn't the
sexual exploitation of a child either since while 16-year olds might not be adults, they aren't
children either, either physically or mentally (in terms of giving informed consent to perform in
these roles). I mean, let's not be naive. We're not talking porn, we're talking cheesecake in movies like this or
when Britney shakes her thang, and that is nothing to get too worked up over. That said, I can't really
believe that Linda Carol was 16 at the time. She looks too mature, and she starred in at least a couple of
other movies with nudity before her supposed 18th birthday, and well, frankly, if you've seen recent pictures of her,
she looks older than the 34 should should be in 2004. But I digress....
So Jenny gets ratted out by "Truck Driver" and ends up in solitary... but not before Edna
administers a little corrective therapy with the help of a length of rubber hose... off camera,
happily (or unhappily for you perverts out there). While Jenny is away, there is nothing to stop
Charlie from having her way with Lisa, and indeed, Charlie and the girls strip Lisa naked and
brand her butt with a red-hot coat hanger. Sherri Stoner, who plays Lisa, was, as you may know,
the body model for Ariel in The Little Mermaid (1989) and Belle in Beauty and the Beast
(1991). So (again for you perverts out there) if you ever wanted to see Ariel or Belle stripped
naked and branded... well, here is your chance. This, by the way, is a total throwaway scene -
pure exploitation - since having branded Lisa, Charlie basically seems no longer interested in
her.
Well, Jenny finally gets out of solitary. Norton wants Jenny to testify to Edna's brutality in a
report to the prison commission, but Jenny's had enough. She decides to just serve out her time
and keep quiet. Ah, but that would make a boring movie, wouldn't it? Anyway, while working
in the fields, Jenny spots a little kitten. The girls play with the kitty, and then Jenny decides to
smuggle the cat back into dorm as a gift for Lisa, you know, sort of as a substitute the bunny.
Lisa loves the kitty, of course, though not all the girls are so happy, leading one to make the
perfectly predictably pun, "The last thing we need in here is another pussy." Ha ha. I would
almost have been disappointed if they hadn't used that line. Well, as you can imagine, this poor
kitty will meet a grisly end. And indeed during one evening roll call, Charlie lets the kitty loose,
and Edna chases after it, ultimately stomping it to death (happily off camera). This is an homage
to Caged (1950) in which a similar scene occurs. Well, this sets off a mini riot that is only
brought under control when Sutter steps in and discharges a shotgun into the ceiling.
The night, though, Lisa snaps. She sneaks out of the dorm and climbs up the speaker tower. Oh,
I didn't mention that did I? In the courtyard of the facility is a watchtower with speakers
mounted on it. Every evening Sutter reads lurid bible passages to the prisoners.... I don't think
they are actual passages, but they have the flavor of Jeremiah 13:27. Anyway, Lisa climbs this
tower, with Edna in pursuit. At the top, Edna threatens the fragile girl, who breaks through a
railing and plunges to her death in a suicide of sorts.
Well, that is all Norton can take. She files her report. Sure enough the commissioners show up
to investigate. Sutter and Edna deny all wrongdoings. The commissioners want to speak to the
prisoners to get their side of the story. However, Edna packs the room with thoroughly cowed
inmates, so no one seems willing to back up Norton's accusations... even tough chick Nicky who
is otherwise always spoiling for a fight. Back in the dining hall, the other girls have a different
agenda. They take one of the guards hostage with a fork, and then march toward the
administration building to crash the meeting.
One of the pleasures of this movie is Wendy O. William's Charlie. This is a character that exists
solely to support the plot. Well, I guess, one could argue that Charlie is a sociopath, and hence
does not have to behave consistently... but sometimes Charlie's is Edna's girltoy. Other times
she curses out Edna brutally. She fights with Jenny most of the time, but then suddenly at the
end is the co-leader of Jenny's revolt. Indeed, though she's been co-antagonist (with Edna) for
most of the movie, she gets a heroic ending. I wonder how much of that was planned, and how
much just sorta happened as they filmed?
Anyway, with one guard hostage, the girls try to storm the meeting. Unfortunately, they are met
by the rest of the guards led by a shotgun-toting Edna. Jenny makes the quite reasonable point
that she won't be able to shoot all of them. Edna, however, decides to try, shooting Charlie in
the shoulder. In movies, shoulder wounds are often mysteriously inconsequential. In some
cases, one can construct an explanation, namely that the bullet passed through soft tissue
exclusively, and hence that the victim retains some range of motion and strength in the arm.
This strikes me as less likely with a shotgun blast... but I'm not a doctor, so I could be wrong
about that. Anyway, Edna shooting just enrages all the girls who proceed to charge the guards.
The guards scatter. Rioting ensues.
Still armed with her shotgun, Edna tries to escape. She makes the unlikely choice that the best
way to escape is to climb the guard tower while firing randomly at the rioting inmates.
Remember Edna's got to weigh close to 300 lbs., so climbing ain't her forte. Charlie who is
more enraged than harmed after being shot races out of the compound and commandeers the
prison's bus. She slams it into gear and steers it toward the tower. Then, she punches her way
through the windshield, climbs through, and clambers onto the bus's roof as it hurtles towards the
tower. Then just at the last second, she jumps off the bus onto the concrete courtyard. The bus
slams into the tower, setting it aflame. At the top, Edna laughs maniacally, still firing the
shotgun, until the flames catch up to her. Then she plunges, burning, to her death. Charlie,
meanwhile, finally succumbs to her injuries.
Instead of ending on that high note, however, the movie continues on with a sappy epilogue
where Jenny finally gets out and bids an emotional farewell to Nicky. Blah. Why bother setting
a guard tower on fire and having the villain plunge to her death in flames if you aren't going to
close on that?
Well, regardless, this movie is pretty much a hoot if you can stomach the few scenes that are too
serious for the genre. It is best appreciated after having watching a significant number of WiP
flicks because then a lot of the over-the-top plot elements can be appreciated both as homage
and satire. That said, a lot of the movie is undeniably creepy if you stop to think about it,
especially the whole Linda Carol issue. I dunno. I guess I can't particularly recommend this
movie except to real fans of genre... or to perverts with weird fantasies about Disney characters
(you know who you are!). And if you want to check out Linda Carol without feeling guilty, then
definitely pick up a copy of Carnal Crimes (1991), which is one of the very few "erotic
thrillers" to be actually sexy and which features Ms. Carol in various degrees of undress
throughout.
Available at
 |
|
|
