- Directed and executive produced by David Greene
- Written by Shelly Katz and D.B. Ledrov
- Starring
- Priscilla Barnes
- Barbara Feldon
- Andrea Marcovicci
- Maureen McCormick
- Michael Brandon
- Produced by Bill and Pat Finnegan
Screenwriter Shelly Katz has only this credit to her (his?) name. Co-writer D.B. Ledrov has, in addition to this, a co-writing credit on The Shuttered Room (1967), also directed by TV-movie workhorse David Greene (based on a story by H.P. Lovecraft and August Derleth). I wonder if, somehow, they both knew that this would be their only real contribution to the history of cinema, and thus set out to write a TV-movie that Meant Something.
Of course, the ‘70s were a decade frought with Meaning anyway – new wisdom, new paradigms, discovering one’s self, getting in touch with one’s inner child/mystic/mother-in-law/what have you. What could have been (and was surely meant to be originally) a mildly engaging suspense yarn became a pseudo-drama, painting a picture of societal tensions present in the minds and op-ed columns of the sensitive intelligentsia at the time. Not bad for a Monday Night Movie on ABC.
Yup, sure looks like Hell to me.
A Vacation in Hell was shot in Hawaii, but the setting is that generically tropical backdrop which could be anywhere from Mexico to the Philippines. A secluded resort on the white beachfront caters to the young, hip swingers of 1979 looking for a good time. Alan (Michael Brandon) is already there, scoping out the chicks with a practiced eye under his newsboy hat. He’s there to meet the bus as it brings in a load of fresh meat, including Denise (Priscilla Barnes, before her 72-episode run on Three’s Company), who’s wearing a brunette wig but is definitely a natural blonde, if you know what I mean. Denise’s assigned roommate for her stay is Barbara (Andrea Marcovicci), who as luck would have it has had an abortive relationship with Alan. Barbara might as well be wearing a placard around her neck that reads “The Voice of Feminism,” and we’ll have plenty of opportunity to explore what she has to say.
We’re also introduced to sixteen-year-old Margret (twenty-three-year-old Maureen “Marcia Brady” McCormick) and her mother Evelyn (Barbara Feldon, “Agent 99” of Get Smart); one’s too young and one’s too old to be the resort’s target demographic, but they’re there for togetherness and such after Evelyn’s divorce. That’s pretty much our entire cast… except for a couple of natives who live in the nearby jungle: a teenage boy (uncredited) who’s just undergone a hunting rite of passage and received a boar’s tooth necklace from and older native – brother? Father? I dunno (Ed Ka’ahea).
Alan, a hunka-hunka burnin’ WHAT IS THAT ON YOUR HEAD?!
Now that we’ve established the “vacation,” on to the “hell”! Alan wants to spend some time along with Denise, so he rents one of the inflatable excursion dinghies the resort has available, and pays the attendant something extra so he won’t have to get the dinghy back by 6pm, just in case he and Denise want to spend the night on some secluded beach, wink wink nudge nudge. Denise doesn’t know about Alan’s overnight camping plans, though, and invites Barbara along (because what’s more feminist than a cockblocker?). What the hey, then; Alan throws it open to Margret and Evelyn, and the five of them set out, singing sea shanties.
So. Four women, one man. Because this originally aired on ABC, not Cinemax, Alan is definitely not going to get up close and personal with Denise or anyone else. When they bring the dinghy into shore on a cliff-rimmed beach, it hits a rock and springs a leak. No one’s much concerned, but there aren’t any repair tools in the boat, and even without knowing about Alan’s “extended rental” arrangement everyone knows that it’ll be hours before they’re missed. So they decide to hike back toward the resort. What’s the worst that could happen?
“But I don’t want to be Ginger!”
Well, first, there’s a cliff that wears them out in the climbing (and us in the watching, too – it’s a long, slow scene) and causes them to lose their few meager provisions. Then, in trekking overland, they get out of earshot of the ocean and lose their sense of direction. Then Alan discovers several boars’ heads on pikes out in the jungle – an indication that whoever finds them first might not be who they want to. They bed down for the night, and Alan falls asleep on watch; when he awakes, a shadowy figure with a gun is peering over Denise. Startled, he stabs the figure with his four-inch pocket knife and kills the teenage native we saw earlier. They have to leave the corpse behind as they keep going in the morning, but it’s found soon enough…
As much as I hate to employ trendy critical methods, this movie cries out to be analyzed in the light of feminism. Alan is a generic single male; his background and interests are left a cipher, save for his interest in getting in to Denise’s shorts. The four women, by contrast, are each given enough character moments to qualify this movie for heavy rotation on Lifetime. Denise is the pretty girl who’s discovered that life is a lot easier if she lets the men she interests be in charge. Evelyn is the divorcee who’s trying to find out how to be independent of men again. Margret is the girl on the cusp of womanhood, dangling her toes in this whole romance thing. And Barbara… She’s supposed to be the strong self-sufficient woman, I suppose, even though it’s revealed that that whole stance is actually a reaction to an abusive father. It’s not an exaggeration to call her a man-hater; she proclaims her distrust of anything male proudly. She also criticizes Alan for taking charge of trying to get them all back, but only after the fact – she’s certainly willing to follow his lead and let him take point until trouble strikes, at which point she second-guesses his reasonable actions and blames their problems on his maleness. She is, in a word, tiresome.
I included this screenshot for all of you with a Marcia Brady fixation. You’re welcome.
In 1979, feminism wasn’t exactly new, but it was new enough that writers such as these would deliberately and consciously incorporate feminists motifs into their work (as opposed to it having been subsumed and assumed as a basic part of the social fabric, as in so much of pop culture today). The four women, then, can be seen as deliberate female archetypes, a reaction against the “screaming subordinate” characters to which women were so often relegated in jungle adventure films of previous decades. That’s all fine and dandy, but the problem with feminism as frequently practiced (I can’t speak to theory) is that the female individuals’ self-definition is even more masculocentric1 than otherwise; observe how each of the four women here is defined by her stance regarding men, despite all their talk of “sisterhood.” As already mentioned, Barbara is cast in the role of the “independent woman,” yet it becomes clear that her independence is entirely a reaction to the actions of men in her life. When the older native makes himself known to the vacationers, hers is the most violent and aggressive response, mainly because (and I’m not assuming this, she declares it) he’s a man, and therefore inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. At least she’s colorblind in her misandry, which is surprisingly refreshing.
This is the freeze-frame that ends the movie. Seriously.
Pretty deep for a TV-movie, huh? Of course, in focusing on sociopolitical subtext I have to ignore things like Margret’s ludicrous “dance of desire” for Alan, complete with suddenly schmaltzy music, and the arbitrary nature of the path the vacationers choose through the jungle even after they all agree that finding and following the ocean shore is the most prudent policy. But hey, I have to leave some things for you to discover, should you ever happen to watch this.
Some Notable Totables:
- body count: 3
- breasts: 0
- explosions: 0
- ominous thunderstorms: 1
- actors who’ve appeared on Star Trek: 0
- I didn’t make that word up, honest.[back]
And the eleven-year-old in me, who sat through months of Brady Bunch re-runs because his babysitter graduated magna cum laude from Sit ‘Em in Front of the TV and Forget ‘Em University, says,”Thank you.”
Nathan is a good and kindly lord to his subjects!
Please sir, can we have more?
If you expect me to break into song, you’re… often right, actually.
On a side note, it’s probably good that Milkman Dan didn’t fill in for The Head.
I would not want to be here when The Head came home to find his kitten on the flatter side!
Plus Dan would drink all your booze…
And play cruel mindgames with all the child protagonists of those Kushner-Locke kidvids.
“…the problem with feminism as frequently portrayed in mass media…”
Fixed that for you.
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that a seventies movie would equate feminism with misandry. Feminism may have been “trendy” in the seventies, but it wasn’t well-liked. And even now, as I’ve observed, there are still a host of misconceptions about it.
Shifter,
I’m overjoyed for you that you’ve never interacted with feminists who, intentionally or not, make the focus of their feminist identity even more masculocentric than if they had modeled their lives after June Cleaver. I, unfortunately, have encountered many self-proclaimed feminists who are under the misapprehension that “feminism” means “the loud study of why men suck.”
Hi Nathan, thanks for replying. Not having been present at any of your discussions, I can’t speak with authority on what the “self-proclaimed feminists” you encountered really meant. But in my experience, what feminists are complaining about is misogynist men, and we get annoyed at guys who interject, “But I’m not like that!” because 1. That’s not the point and 2. They’re making it all about them. (And that’s not even addressing the issue that sometimes the men who get most defensive are the ones who occasionally do sexist things but don’t realize they’re doing it.) This is discussed a bit here.
It’s true that there is a lot of discussion about men in feminist books and blogs — well, of course there is; we share the world with you. So naturally there’s going to be discussion of how men and women can have healthier interpersonal relationships, how men can do their part to be feminist allies, etc.
I think part of the problem is that every feminist is a “self-proclaimed” one — everyone from those who, like the bumper sticker proclaims, espouse the radical notion that women are people,to those who say that hetero sex is “rape with meaningful glances” or that any difference of opinion between a man and a woman is caused by the man’s fear of the woman’s vagina. And unfortunately, the loudest and most radical in any movement get all the headlines.
It just seems that too many of the “activists” (usually the second type) aren’t content with singing “I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar”; they change the words to “I Am Not Male, ‘Cuz They Suck.”
Heh. The really weird thing is, the most anti-male comments I ever encountered came from a man. And he was immediately dogpiled in the blog comments by women saying, “Not cool, dude.”
Obviously a self-hating type.
“…who’s wearing a brunette wig but is definitely a natural blonde, if you know what I mean.”
Since this is a TV movie, I’m assuming you don’t mean that she has blonde pubic hair…so you must mean it as a blonde-bashing joke.
Kudos for criticizing misandry, though. If there’s a silver lining, it would be that because this was a 1970s movie, Barbara’s misandry wasn’t being portrayed as a good thing, just something to make the movie topical. Today it would be, as you say, just part of the background of our society.
“Barbara might as well be wearing a placard around her neck that reads “The Voice of Feminism,” and we’ll have plenty of opportunity to explore what she has to say.”
Sounds like Hell to me.
BTW. “Feminism” is nothing new. There were feminists in the 1800s for example. They fought for women’s rights, but never deluded themselves into believing that they would be anything but women. They fought for the right to stay home and raise families instead of being forced to work in factories and leave their children for others to raise amongst other things. Quite different from today’s “feminists” who appear to desire to be men. The early feminists would spit on anyone who said that having children was a punishment.
P Stroud, check out some old anti-suffrage cartoons. Suffragettes had the exact same stereotypes thrown at them: they hated men, wanted to be men, were un-maternal, and let’s not forget ugly and shrill.
Sheesh, anti-feminists, can’t you come up with some new insults? ;)
The problem is that feminism, like any other large self-identified body (Muslims, conservatives, Christians, Mac users), contains multitudes, and the example of said body furthest away from your position is going to captivate your rhetoric most. There are plenty of reasonable feminists, moderate Muslims, easygoing Christians, etc. with whom I could genially and mildly disagree (not sure about the Mac users), but it’s the Andrea Dworkins, the Osama Bin Ladens, and the Fred Phelpses who go out of their way to grab the attention of those most opposed to them.
@Nathan: Sure. But it does get very frustrating, in part because people don’t seem to realize that the same old accusations got pitched at people whose cause is now taken for granted by most.
Nathan:
Alright! Let’s back this truck up!
Just what may I ask is wrong with a Mac?
You dare to besmirch what the Great and Almighty Steve Jobs has created for you?!?!
(Although primarily a PC user, I find the Mac to be superior. Just me.)
Shiftercat and Nathan:
I posit that the equality gap exists simply because of fear. Men fear the power women can exert over them. A woman can get a man to do anything. This is something that seems to be to be the obvious pattern over time.
They say behind every great man there is a woman pushing him to greatness and behind every man on the road to hell there is a woman shoving him down it.
(I do not believe either statement to be without exception, but I believe them to be true.)
Men are by far the weaker sex.
@John Campbell: Bah. Men aren’t babies. And your argument presumes universal heterosexuality.
I never said men were babies. I’m trying to distill this down to a basic component. Taking the Occam’s Razor approach if you will.
Men and women can do anything the other can with two exceptions. Men cannot become pregnant and women can’t impregnate.
Well men can’t think with both sides of their brain at the same time. There’s that advantage women have.
But I fail to see where either creates the equality gap that has existed for so long in history.
Perhaps I was taking things a bit too simple. Men can exert the same power over women.
It’s a difficult thing to pin down I guess.
Also I thought we were discussing the rights/roles/whatever of men and women. Therefore it’s a heterosexual discussion.
I think it would be hard to look at feminism in homosexual terms. How does a man fight for his rights as a woman? Or for that matter a woman fight for her rights as a man?
Oh cripes. Someone had to go and mention Mac users again. It’s like mentioning birth certificates at a Republican caucus. Or reparations at a Democratic one. With nerd-style violence, though.
The feminist movement becomes a bit ludicrous when it tries to create one size fits all solutions for something that can’t really be put in a neat box. I think we should concentrate on Human Rights. If we can at least try to guarantee basic rights to freedom for everyone instead of trying to force certain outcomes then more progress will be made. Other wise we end up with a byzantine labyrinth of quotas and regulations that end up causing worse problems than existed at the start. Plus, we might get more movies like “A Vacation In Hell” with Michael Brandon in a ridiculous hat.
@John Campbell: I think you’re confusing “homosexual” with “transgendered”. They’re not the same at all.
I think you’re also confused about “fighting for your rights as a [sex here]“. Mostly it’s about fighting for equal rights (and that includes stuff like men being allowed to take parental leave).
As for why it’s called “feminism” and not “equalism” or something, that’s explained here. In fact, I’d suggest reading the entire FAQ roundup.
I think part of the problem is that every feminist is a “self-proclaimed” one
And the reason that more women and men do not proclaim themselves as feminists is the long-running backlash that says if you proclaim yourself a feminist, you are a radical man-hater.
So only the ones who feel quite strongly, often the ones who are forced to speak up, are the ones who are already in an ideal position to be undercut as radicals or portrayed as flaky extremists.
Very neat, that.
And the reason that that backlash is so long-running is that there are man-haters (or are they just called “political lesbians” now?) who wrap themselves in the feminist flag.
Nathan Shumate said:
Could you cite some of those, please? Five or more public figures?
I ask because that’s one of those assertions which is repeated so often that a lot of people think it’s true, but repetition is not evidence.
Wow. Seriously? You get to choose the metric, and with the nebulous “public figures” criterion so that you can dismiss any name I bring up by saying, “Oh, she’s just fringe”?
How about I just send you to the Wikipedia entry on separatist feminism and you explore the references? Or maybe you can just ask Amanda Marcotte who her heroines are.
I use the criterion of “public figures” in internet debates because I’ve found that otherwise people may bring up someone they ran into once, and I can’t make a judgment call on someone I’ve never met and whose statements were never published.
I pick five because, first of all, it’s a nice round number; second, because if I picked one or two those could indeed be dismissed as mere outliers.
As for feminist separatism, yeah, I’m aware of its existence, but by its very nature — separatist — its influence on the rest of feminism is very limited. As noted in the wiki article, other feminists tend to criticize them as counterproductive.
I do hope that while you’re on Wikipedia you take the time to read some of their other articles about feminism.
And while I disagree with Amanda Marcotte about several things (her habit of making up her own definitions for things she disagrees with, for instance), I wouldn’t say she’s a man-hater or a separatist.
Sorry to keep bringing this up, but I can’t help but feel strongly about it because, to be blunt, we’ve still got a long way to go before we’ve got true equality. And there are people who don’t want that, so they perpetuate negative stereotypes about feminists. The more people who repeat those stereotypes, the harder the fight is for the rest of us.
Pointing back to our original interchange: as it is broadly (one might even say normatively) practiced, feminism is of necessity a masculocentric stance, because it must compare a designated “female” experience or situation with a designated “male” one. You said yourself, “we’ve still got a long way to go before we’ve got true equality.” Aside from any problems inherent in determining the value of “equal” between two biological constructs which are physically and psychologically apposite, how can you be focused on equality and yet not be thus reactive to men?
(The only other attempt I’ve seen to define feminism without making it masculocentric unfortunately makes its authenticity dependent on a whole bunch of other political stances; according to too many op-ed columnists, activist and Daily Guardian contributors, authentic feminism predetermines all your stance on unions, socialized medicine, Arizona’s immigration law, gay marriage, green energy, and Sarah Palin’s reproductive choices.)
Me, I’m a peoplist: acknowledge differences while acknowledging everyone’s foundational peoplehood. (I’d say “humanist,” but that word of course has an areligious or antireligious meaning quite apart from the definition of its root word.)
Nathan, it sounds like we’re doing a bit of talking past one another here. I don’t consider it a bad thing for men to be part of the feminist equation; in fact, I think they ought to be. Part of it is that, as I mentioned, we share the planet with you, but also, there are feminist issues which men are uniquely positioned to handle — for instance, Hugo Schwyzer has argued that sexual assault and domestic violence ought to be considered “men’s issues” because men are the ones most able to educate other men against them. And, of course, Patriarchy Hurts Men Too.
Without knowing which op-eds you’re speaking of, I’d have to hazard a guess that what they’re talking about is intersectionality. It seems to be generally accepted now that sexism and racism frequently intersect, as do sexism and homophobia; on the other hand, questions about how much of an intersection there is between women’s rights and environmentalism are pretty hotly debated.
As for what makes one a “bad feminist”, I like the quote from this essay: “…liking Oprah and Chanel doesn’t make you a “bad” feminist — only ‘liking’ the wage gap makes you a “bad” feminist.”
I’m also one of those people who likes Scott McCloud’s definition of “Art”.
Then, once again, I can only point out that “feminism” is such a huge, diffuse and all-encompassing label that is has little use as a descriptor. After all, it encompasses both your (eminently reasonable) position, as well as those who resolutely defended President Clinton’s misogynistic habits because he was of the right party, or those who declare Sarah Palin to be an “inauthentic womyn.” Feminists of various flavors can declare each other to be excommunicated, but the fact is that there are plenty of (loud) voices who both label themselves “true” feminists and who hold and propound the repugnant philosophies I’ve mentioned. Unfortunately, the “bad” feminists have just as much right to appropriate the label as the rest.
Well, there is a reason we often say “feminisms”. :)
Okay, I want you to go to your respective corners and breath!
Shiftercat, (yes I know so belated, but such is the whimsy of life) way back up there you said I was confusing homosexual with transgender. I know the difference.
I guess I was improperly trying to define it.
It happens =)
And to both of you, you both present excellent arguments. I agree it’s an incredibly hard thing to pin down and I thank you both for further enlightening me.
Salut!
Thanks, John. I was feeling kinda bad about the threadjack, but I feel better to know it was at least entertaining.
You should never feel bad when there is good healthy discourse eben if the end result is agreeing to disagree.
It was both enlightening and entertaining!
And again I sincerely thank you both.