The Blues Brothers (1980)

[Ignatius_S]

I agree. It kinda baffles me to this day that most people - including those close to them, if the Belushi biography/oral history is anything to go by - pins the film's failure to the switcheroo. When that's demonstrably the best thing about it. Try to imagine it with the roles reversed - can't do it, can you? I mean, Aykroyd is such a naturally bizarre, uncanny individual, and Belushi had such a wide streak of suburban conventionality to him underneath the mania, that it works beautifully. That's one of the main facets of the tragedy of his early demise, to me at least; he wanted so badly to show his range, and was fully capable of it (even when the films - Old Boyfriends and Continental Divide, for two - were not much cop overall), but everybody wanted Bluto, on screen and in life. And so it was, unto death...

I've been meaning to read that book - partly, because I'm interested anyway and partly, it was intended as a rejoinder to Bob Woodward's Wired. It's been a (very) long that I read the latter, but it paints a very vivid picture of Neighbors being a hugely troubled production - on paper, the names involved looked a winner but in reality, the mix proved to a terrible one.

Going from memory, but the two producers were nicknamed 'the Sunshine Boys' because they kept being so optimistic in the face of mounting production problems, which they were reluctant to get involved in. I think Larry Gelbert gets a fair bit of criticism, such as his adaptation of the source being not that much cop. From other stuff I've read (e.g. his involvement with Marty Feldman), Gelbert sounds like someone with very fixed opinions and could see in some ways, not the most natural collaborator. Also, with a fair bit of his career, I rather wonder how much he brought to the table - but that's another discussion.

In Wired, Belushi is presented as behaving erratically, which had an effect on production. In the quicksand scene, he insisted on having his feet tied to blocks and refused to listen to Avildsen, who said this was too dangerous - arguably, one could say that the latter should have put his foot down (from what I remember from the book though, he lost control of the production) but Belushi got into trouble and had to be rescued. There's an account of Belushi visiting a week-respected composer at the studio to lobby for Fear to do the soundtrack, in a manner that was going to have the opposite effect, cause concern and shows the extent he was agitating against the production.

I have a feeling that some reviewers actually liked Belushi and Aykroyd playing against type, but also have a feeling that the public/fans wanted the original casting.

Interestingly, the film's release was a pioneering use of releasing a film nationwide simultaneously - the studio thought the traditional, staggered approach would cause the film to flop as word of mouth spread, so they went for this instead and it worked. Opened strongly but then revenue tailed off pretty abruptly - a while ago, I looked at opening weekends that year and Neighbors' was stronger than a lot (double digits) of other number one films that year.

Apologies if any of this is in the book you've read!

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Interesting post, Ignatius, as always.

I'd like to read that Belushi book too, I really must get hold of it. Has anyone here seen HBO's recent Belushi documentary? It's apparently very good.

As for Neighbors, it wasn't, as you say, a total disaster in terms of box office and critical reception. Ebert, for example, felt that Aykroyd and Belushi switching roles paid off and made the film more interesting. And it is an interesting anomaly.

We all know that Ghostbusters was initially planned as an Aykroyd & Belushi vehicle, but I wonder how that would've panned out. Belushi was presumably earmarked for the 'leader' role that eventually went to Murray, although the character would've presumably been quite different.

At the time of Belushi's death, Ghostbusters was still a wild Aykroyd cyclone of ideas and concepts with no discernible characters to speak of. The film we ended up with was very much a collaborative effort between Aykroyd, Ramis, Reitman and, via improvisation, Murray. Belushi would've added his own flavour, thus altering the film's dynamic quite considerably.

Anyway, this is just idle speculation and probably more suited to the Ghostbusters thread.

[mothman]

It had been the best part of 25 years since I'd last seen it, but a recent attempt to watch this with my eldest had us both bored and giving up halfway through.

[jobotic]

I saw The Great Outdoors the other month.

It was dreadful but Ackroyd still had a great energy and I couldn't help but enjoy him.

[greenman]

Interesting post, Ignatius, as always.

I'd like to read that Belushi book too, I really must get hold of it. Has anyone here seen HBO's recent Belushi documentary? It's apparently very good.

As for Neighbors, it wasn't, as you say, a total disaster in terms of box office and critical reception. Ebert, for example, felt that Aykroyd and Belushi switching roles paid off and made the film more interesting. And it is an interesting anomaly.

We all know that Ghostbusters was initially planned as an Aykroyd & Belushi vehicle, but I wonder how that would've panned out. Belushi was presumably earmarked for the 'leader' role that eventually went to Murray, although the character would've presumably been quite different.

At the time of Belushi's death, Ghostbusters was still a wild Aykroyd cyclone of ideas and concepts with no discernible characters to speak of. The film we ended up with was very much a collaborative effort between Aykroyd, Ramis, Reitman and, via improvisation, Murray. Belushi would've added his own flavour, thus altering the film's dynamic quite considerably.

Anyway, this is just idle speculation and probably more suited to the Ghostbusters thread.

I suspect a Belushi Ghostbusters probably would have played up the blue collar aspect more, maybe some of the wilder ideas like them being in the future and traveling around in time to hunt ghosts might have been dropped but I could see the two of them more as hired hands ala Winston maybe working for an Egon like character who'd invented the tech.

[Ignatius_S]

I agree. It kinda baffles me to this day that most people - including those close to them, if the Belushi biography/oral history is anything to go by...

Is it worth getting a physical copy? The electronic version is a lot cheaper, but I seem to recall that the physical one looked liked it was nicely done with a decent amount of photos but was basing that on news articles (and my memory might be playing tricks!

[Ignatius_S]

Interesting post, Ignatius, as always.

I'd like to read that Belushi book too, I really must get hold of it. Has anyone here seen HBO's recent Belushi documentary? It's apparently very good.

As for Neighbors, it wasn't, as you say, a total disaster in terms of box office and critical reception. Ebert, for example, felt that Aykroyd and Belushi switching roles paid off and made the film more interesting. And it is an interesting anomaly.

We all know that Ghostbusters was initially planned as an Aykroyd & Belushi vehicle, but I wonder how that would've panned out. Belushi was presumably earmarked for the 'leader' role that eventually went to Murray, although the character would've presumably been quite different.

At the time of Belushi's death, Ghostbusters was still a wild Aykroyd cyclone of ideas and concepts with no discernible characters to speak of. The film we ended up with was very much a collaborative effort between Aykroyd, Ramis, Reitman and, via improvisation, Murray. Belushi would've added his own flavour, thus altering the film's dynamic quite considerably.

Anyway, this is just idle speculation and probably more suited to the Ghostbusters thread.

Most kind! That reminds me that I have that documentary recorded so will have to watch it soon.

I'll have to dig out Wired as there was a lot about the production and aftermath. The narrative there was that if the film had been released in the normal way, it would have tanked - IIRC, because the simultaneous release worked so well, it was quickly commented.

It talks about the adaptation and from what I remember, Gilbert's approach was criticised - as was the ending. Because of this thread, I've bought Berber's novel, which I've been meaning to do for a very very long time. Read the first four chapters last night and my take so far is that it's brilliant. Going from memory, but I read one review on Goodreads that said that the film wasn't 'unfilmable as is often claimed and although they thought the film was poor, that they couldn't but help see the actors as the characters in the book - and I'm certainly imagining Belushi and Aykroyd!

In terms of the book's descriptions of Earl and Harry (so name change in the film for the latter), the film's casting is very apt. Earl is a shorter man, whose natural stoutness has turned to flab, whilst Harry is taller and rangy, which instantly invoked the two actors in the film for me. Of course, there's no need to the actors to physical resemble the book's characters and although, Earl is intimidated by the much larger Harry, a shorter, but physically powerful person would do the same truck - also, the intimidation is also psychological.

My initial reaction is that it would be a very challenging book to to adapt because (unless something changes and I don't think it will) is that although it's not a first-person narration, it's completely from Earl's point of view and early on, it's established that he is not necessarily someone who can be relied upon to correctly assess what's happening.

I do need to watch the film again, really. Although the first time I tried to watch it, I went it with low expectations, I wasn't able to make it through and that viewing has always affected my opinion of the film.

One reason I want to watch it again is to assess Belushi's performance. Previously, I've felt that his fell short and Aykroyd's was superior - I was going to mention The Great Outdoors as jobotic has done; there I felt Candy and Aykroyd could have swapped roles and done both brilliantly, whereas I could see such a natural swap here.

However, the more I have watched The Blues Brothers, the more I have appreciated Belushi's performance - so I might well reassess him in Neighbors. Also, I think one of my issues with the latter is that I found his Earl so unappealing and unsympathetic, that I found it a struggle to care - on reflection, that might be more to do with the script, rather than the actor.

[surreal]

Always loved this movie but it's been a few years since I watched it as I know it too well.

I was lucky enough to see the band live at Birmingham Town Hall in (I think) 1990 - part of the Birmingham Jazz festival.  Not Aykroyd obviously but all the others - Blue Lou, Steve Cropper, Matt "Guitar" Murphy, Donald "Duck" Dunn et al.  Incredible show. 

[Shit Good Nose]

Bored and giving up halfway through Ghostbusters Blues Brothers?  The Great Outdoors dreadful?

The fuck is going on in this thread?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

A pretty good Vanity Fair article about the chaotic making of The Blues Brothers (1980).

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/01/making-of-blues-brothers-budget-for-cocaine

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

In the months leading up to his death, Belushi was working on a romantic screwball comedy about winemaking called Noble Rot.

The author of this Vulture article read a draft of the screenplay and reckons that, with a bit of work, it could've been a decent film (although how much Belushi actually contributed to the script is debatable; he was totally off the rails by that point).

https://www.vulture.com/2014/01/script-review-john-belushis-lost-last-comedy-noble-rot.html

[McChesney Duntz]

Is it worth getting a physical copy? The electronic version is a lot cheaper, but I seem to recall that the physical one looked liked it was nicely done with a decent amount of photos but was basing that on news articles (and my memory might be playing tricks!

It's a very nicely put together book and there's loads of photos throughout. I'd say it's worth it but I'm a bit of a fanatic about the subject and all what surrounds it.

[jobotic]

Bored and giving up halfway through Ghostbusters Blues Brothers?  The Great Outdoors dreadful?

The fuck is going on in this thread?!?!?!?!?!?!

Just to be clear, I think The Blues Brothers is wonderful. But yeah The Great Outdoors was pretty bad.

[Ignatius_S]

It's a very nicely put together book and there's loads of photos throughout. I'd say it's worth it but I'm a bit of a fanatic about the subject and all what surrounds it.

Many thanks - that's really good to know! I'm sure that when the book was announced or released, I saw online articles and it looked a pretty handsome edition and was pleasantly surprised how nice it looked, but wasn't sure if I misremembering. Nice to know about the photos and that's a huge plus for me.

[SteveDave]

I liked the scene where one of them left the room and then came back in in full Blues Brothers clothes and the dog wouldn't stop barking at him as he danced that dance. Everyone was angry. Then there was another dog but I don't think that was scripted.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Just to be clear, I think The Blues Brothers is wonderful. But yeah The Great Outdoors was pretty bad.

The only thing I remember about The Great Outdoors is the fun closing credits sequence, which is just an excuse for Aykroyd to bust some Elwood moves to Land of 1000 Dances by Wilson Pickett.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film and I daresay it was probably just shot on the hoof as a way for the cast to unwind.

[phantom_power]

I watched this yesterday having not seen it for years. It is fun but a mess of a film. People seem to do things just to allow the most amount of destruction possible at a given time and the plot is all over the shop. It is pretty amazing that so much money was thrown at a film that was a spin-off for two minor SNL characters but then I suppose that was the time of maximum excess in Hollywood what with Heaven's Gate, 1941 et al. Can't imagine David S Pumpkins getting what would amount to a 150 million dollar budget in todays money nowadays

[greenman]

They had already had a very sucessful album release a couple of years before the film and really the film itself does assume you know the characters somewhat already.

[Ignatius_S]

I watched this yesterday having not seen it for years. It is fun but a mess of a film. People seem to do things just to allow the most amount of destruction possible at a given time and the plot is all over the shop. It is pretty amazing that so much money was thrown at a film that was a spin-off for two minor SNL characters but then I suppose that was the time of maximum excess in Hollywood what with Heaven's Gate, 1941 et al. Can't imagine David S Pumpkins getting what would amount to a 150 million dollar budget in todays money nowadays

There were significant differences between The Blues Brothers and films like Heavens Gate. In the case of the ones of the latter, Peter Biskind's Raging Bulls, Easy Riders book paints a picture that difficult auteurs like Cimino who essentially tolerated by studio executives on the basis of their track record, but would give them the boot as soon as they failed and basically being given enough rope to hang themselves.

Also, describing The Blue Brothers as a couple of minor SNL characters is selling them short.

The proposed Blues Brothers would star two of the hottest comic talents in America and I feel it's hard to really picture how much that was the case, looking back over the distance of time. Stars that came to prominence on an phenomenally successful and cool television series.

Also, people had made the leap from SNL to successful films. Although great things were predicted for Chevy Chase, his earlier films were patchy but Foul Play was a definite financial success. Meatballs, starring Bill Murray, a surprise smash - cost approximately $1.4 million and grossed over $70 million worldwide. But best of all, Animal House - save for Donald Sutherland, Belushi was the biggest star and arguably the standout performer - $3 million to make and grossed over $140 million, making it the second biggest grossing from that year: https://m.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/domestic/all-movies/cumulative/released-in-1978 (Although, IIRC, those numbers include the 1979 re-release.)

John Landis got the directing gig for Animal House, largely off the back of The Kentucky Fried Movie, which was very nice little earner.

Also, as greenman says, The Blues Brothers had recorded a number one, double platinum album. That was impressive enough but at the time, that sort of music was criminally unhip and to all intents and purposes dead. During the introduction/opening of Briefcase Full of Blues, when Aykroyd says 'By the year 2006, the music known today as the blues will only exist in the classical records department of your local public library' there was a serious point being made.

The Blues Brothers should never have been on SNL - it was only through the sheer bloody-mindedness and a zeal of a true believer and recent convert, which made it happen. Lorne Michaels had to be lobbied hard and only agreed to it if they would wear the bloody bee suits, but was worried that it was going to be a self-indulgent, embarrassing disaster. What actually happened is nothing short of incredible and the development of the Blues Brothers as an act is testament to how serious-minded, Aykroyd and Belushi were about it.

So, two of the hottest comedy talents, one with a reputation for writing brilliant comedy material at a rate one would associate with a machine; the other leading a monster hit film. Playing characters that had a big hit of an album. What's not to love from a studio point of view?

Arguably, Animal House was a big impact on the decision-making process. If a such modest budgeted film could provide such a massive return on investment, when accepted wisdom said that just wouldn't happen, the studios were worried about not having their finger on the public's pulse. So all chips were being placed on Aykroyd and Belushi.

I think this is reflected in the decision to try and adapt Neigbors into a mainstream comedy. That one makes far less sense than TBB in a lot of ways.

[Chedney Honks]

Thanks, that's really interesting. I've watched it again since and it's only grown on me as a comedy.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

Dan Aykroyd recently appeared as a guest on Ed Gamble and James Acaster's Off Menu podcast. And he was very Dan Aykroyd, so much so that Ed and James barely managed to get a word in. They talk about this strange, baffling experience in the latest episode of Herring's podcast. It's very funny.

https://play.acast.com/s/offmenu/ep108-danaykroyd-bonusepisode-

What I love about this is that Aykroyd has put a tremendous amount of detailed thought and effort into coming up with his fantasy meal, but without realising that he's supposed to be having a conversation with the hosts. So it's just a typically Aykroydian rapid-fire monologue replete with an inevitable plug for Crystal Head Vodka.

Funniest bit is towards the end when Aykroyd, having finally run out of steam, says:

Spoiler alert

"Well, I hope I've helped you with your project..."

[close]