Cultural Insanity Sunday Special: The Happy Hooker

[Deleted]

Call Me


The Happy Hooker
(1975 / directed by Nicholas Sgarro)

★★½

The 1970's was not a decade I imagine many people would classify as "fun." Times were getting harder, the culture was becoming more confrontational, and while TV was still having plenty of yucks and heart-warming lols at the expense of hot topics (which offscreen translated into some disturbingly unfunny and unfuzzy reality), film was getting grittier. And, honestly? It was for the best. While it may in many cases have been needlessly bleak and repetitious, it was also a potently socially progressive decade for film. All genres. But, you know... I think some people still missed the 60's. Enter: The Happy Hooker, which could only be termed a gritty film in name only. Sure, we start off in a prison and we see street chicks whip out their knives and a dirty cop (in every sense of the word- this guy is bad news) try to mount our title heroine after stealing all her money, and shortly after we're shown to the cells in back where the largest group of mannish-looking black women I've ever seen in my life are kept like wild animals. But, every actual fight in the film is fought with words (or referenced after-the-fact). The film's many "dark" sights and subjects are handled comedically or shown as no big deal. As though you sat down for a tour of reality which feels about as straight to the heart as looking back on a roadside photo of you in front of a giant ball of twine. Which over 99% of the world's population regard as something that only happens in the National Lampoon's Vacation universe.

The Happy Hooker is a fluff-piece. It wants to swing in full 60's chic but, it stikes a comfortably vapid balance by mixing itself with a 70's groove. And, if any scene was trying to tap into the John Waters' school of comedy (there's an Ice Cream Man here whose delivery, in terms of actual treats, almost rivals that of Pink Flamingos' Egg Man; though right now I could really go for some scrambled eggs), the filmmakers did notice some things had changed when they were making this. But the film's strong points are its' laidback, day-like-any-other attitude (did you know that people openly speculated about Bert and Ernie's home life over 35 years ago?) and its characters. Lynn Redgrave's enterprising Xaviera meets a few total creeps but every one of her callers turns out to be a completely charming gentleman (my favorite is billed as "Man in a Hurry" in the credits). Which must be more fun for the actors than it would've been had their roles consisted of slapping women around just because they had sex for a living. This is of course why the film can do without all that. You've seen it before and seeing it again only gets the sickos off. In a way, the film doesn't take the easy way out either. It means something to me when I see these women lose their money again and again, an occupational hazard that I buy was surmountable for some women in the 70's. I mean- there's no question the film is a turkey where race is concerned (the most awkward "seductive dance" sequence between two women ever to cross my screen). But, Xaviera knows how to stand up for herself. One of the movie's best moments (if you believe it has any) is watching her take apart weasley Nicholas Pryor's frigid, elitist twat of a mother.

[Deleted]

The Boobie Prize


The Happy Hooker Goes to Washington
(1977 / directed by William A. Levey)

★★

So... they made a sequel to The Happy Hooker (not merely one, but that's beside the point). If you'd seen the movie, you would be the one telling me that that's impossible. There's nothing they can do to continue the story. And you'd be right. This isn't just an in-name-only sequel- it's a from-another-planet sequel. And that planet is clearly Planet Garbage. But, and this really does pain me, I have to report that the inhabitants of this planet crafted Goes to Washington with their finest available natural resources. That's not to say that this is an outright porn and that the cast of women are stunning, this is a judgment call for the heterosexual male audience member to make. No, what I'm referring to are the concepts of plot, character, dialogue, and their own way-outside idea of satire. Because... the movie does seem to have a point. Which even I can get down with (can you see this one coming from a mile away?): politicians are hypocrites. To be more specific: that they want to demonize the very same things they indulge in and punish others for enjoying them. Namely, sex for hire (and likely all of it in basic violation of the institution of marriage). The film observes (in far too literal detail) the sexual antics of every single one of its antagonists while they sit in judgment of it in court, slamming their gavels and shouting "this is an outrage!" type rants from on-high, while the film rightly argues that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Well, this all sounds fair enough. And... it is. Where does the garbage part come in? The answer to that is both complex and real simple. The long explaination for why this movie sucks is that it's built on an actual truth: that sexual freedoms are always in judicial jeopardy, people have their actions taken out of context because of it, and their lives are often destroyed by corrupt legality for no other reason than that they enjoyed themselves (I'm speaking beyond the matter of marital infidelity with that, I believe that's genuinely a bad thing). These are what perpetually smiley-faced George Hamilton (the most prop-like thing in the movie, in my opinion) warns the photogenic, lovely, and professional Joey Heatherton (no, I'm not familiar with her beyond just having heard her name) about before she enters the Moral Decency trial battleground. Where an audience of idiotic, laughing baffoons tells you right off the bat that there isn't going to be any serious discussion from either side. They also tell you that Heatherton's version of Lynn Redgrave's character from the first film will have no actual obstacles to overcome, so she can just flirt with the crowd she has in the palm of her hand while Hamilton poses for press shots (told you). Meanwhile, Heatherton's girls go to work literally turning the satire into cartoonish farce (I'm surprised there aren't Looney Tunes sound effects for all the retarded, over-the-top fat and old guys making goofy faces while topless chicks bounce around them... I cannot put that anymore plainly).

The short is self-explanatory at this point. They took something with meaning and made it into a very poor joke. There are enough clever lines here to make the movie a must-see but the filmmakers don't care about how they're delievered. The film has a notion of what humor is and, of course, has the right to be as goofy as it wants to be in principle. But it has no sense of self control. Also- I did mention the thing about all the guys getting a good peep (if not a good bang) being typically on the fatter or older sides of the scale, didn't I? George Hamilton is by far the hottest guy in the film and all he gets are winks (from a really bitchy airport waitress) and flashbulbs. In the first film, Xaviera's client base were men of all ages and body types. And you barely noticed whether they could stand to lose a few pounds or turn back the clock a few hours because they were charming, likable, or unphony guys. By comparison, this film feels like a charity drive.

[Deleted]

That's Not Your Hooker! It's a Man, Baby!


The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood
(1980 / directed by Alan Roberts)

★

So, when I was watching Goes to Washington and becoming engrossed during the first 10 minutes in the very misleadingly intelligent, socially conscious dialogue... I thought they were describing what would eventually become America in the 1980's. Well, they were. But, my point is- things only got worse for freedom and sexual liberation as we neared the Robo-80's. And yet, something changed in the late 70's. Things in entertainment started getting less intense. Less confrontational. Which is one thing. But, also: cheaper. Lazier. And... somehow, culturally, it became a thing to Go Hollywood. When The Muppets did it the year before Hooker, it was treated the way you'd expect that television franchise to transition into film- with an emphasis on fun. But also with an added bonus of intelligence and some surprisingly touching moments. Which goes to show that there is a right way and a wrong way to do something. I think Hooker (the entire franchise was controlled by Cannon Films) got their idea from The Muppets and might have insultingly figured: but we'll make the Goes Hollywood film that adults want to see... while instead making a film 1/75th as mature.

After seeing Goes to Washington, you may be wondering how that is humanly possible. Well, it's certainly an accomplishment- but... not impossible as it turns out. For example, the first Hooker tried not to insult their clients or their workers. And, I say they succeeded. Washington said it's okay to make fun of the clients but, out of all the fairly indistinguishable nudie women lounging about and bouncing around, Xaviera's character really stood out and believed in something. In fact, Joey Heatherton's performance might even make her the strongest Xaviera in the franchise. Not for dramatic achievement but for sheer, memorable dynamism. Hollywood turns every single character into a complete and total moron. Every single man (with Chris Lemmon being a slight exception and the only even remotely likable character and actor in the entire film) is a creep or a hornball or a bloated windbag or a homophobe or a swindler. Extreme stereotypes, is what I'm getting at here. And that's only the men. The film, if you can believe it, has absolutely no respect for women. 3 films about prostitution with a positive outlook on sex over the course of 5 years and this one gets the idea to treat the women like objects.

It sounds like some great big hypocritical contradiction but, I'm not kidding. There are several jokes at the hookers' expense, like they're so dumb that they forget their own names. This is hardly where it ends, just the most egregious example of blatant disrespect. But it's the movie's decision to not write them as characters and they chose to punish the actresses for it and make them act as though their looks and skimpy clothing make them stupid. Not to mention what they've done to Xaviera. She's finally become a literal whore who flirts (and I mean: suggests she'll have sex) with anyone (she does it all: seductive whispers, tender finger touching, soft staring, sitting way too close) and has sex with several people for nothing. One being a cop (we assume might have been trying to bust her) who gives her a $100 bill and then takes it away from her. Another being a limo driver who she bangs right in the limo and we never hear from him again. Yet another being Batman's Adam West (whom you see above on the right) playing a scummy actor who - surprise, surprise - screws her over the next morning. What does she do? She has a "they played me for a fool- ME!" monologue. I guess ignorance is bliss. Not that the character was this stupid in the previous films.

I might have made any kind of case for the film being an everyone-sucks free-for-all if it weren't for how much the franchise has digressed into a really lousy string of men's fantasies. Interrupted by the shoehorning in of ridiculously cheap jabs at Hollywood (including what would be the single most offensive gay stereotype ever committed to celluloid if he'd insulted someone who hadn't insulted him first- Ian Abercrombie, who has never slummed this low before or since). The comedy is still incredibly goofy (during moments when we get to see Xaviera's new house and its' fetish theme rooms) but now the film has a more polished, porny look to it which really lends to the argument that this is for men with incredibly bottom-barrel standards. It really is consistently one of the worst low(?) budget comedies I have ever seen. But, it did look good (and this time, even the music sucked) and... The chase scene finale actually turns the entire film around (for the last 5 minutes), proving beyond any doubt that this wanted to be The Muppet Movie, and scores two excellent laughs. Considering they come on the heels of an extremely laborous men-in-drag joke however: too little, too late.