Tuesday, March 24, 2026

WET HOT AMERICAN SUMMER TURNS 25 (and it’s only gotten better)

 

In 2001, a magnificent, state-of-the-art movie theater opened across the street from the Boston Common. It was a Loews theater and it had a whopping 19 screens, 4,200 seats and also an IMAX theater that alone had 600 seats. Everybody was so excited when this movie theater first opened, including myself. I was a student at Boston University at the time and I think the first movie I saw there was Spiderman.

 

What a lot of people may not know, however, is that, when this particular Loews opened, there was another Loews across town in the Back Bay that suddenly found itself unnecessary. See, this Loews, located in the Copley Mall, did NOT have any stadium seating or state-of-the-art sound, digital projection and certainly no IMAX screen. It probably hadn’t even been renovated since the early 1990s.

 

Instead of closing, however, the theater decided to specialize in showing independent films.[i] And when I say, “independent films,” we’re not talking anything overly indie; we’re talking Hollywood-indie, which, these days, would likely be films that would go straight to Netflix or some other streaming platform.

 

I used to walk through the Copley Mall quite frequently between the years 2000-2004. When I was going to BU, I usually took the train to and from school from the suburbs via the commuter rail. After a day of classes, I’d often have some time to kill before catching my train home and I would “take the scenic route” from BU to the Back Bay train station. This scenic route may have actually consisted of me walking all the way from BU to Back Bay, which was maybe a good 25-30-minute walk. If I didn’t feel like walking THAT much, I would take the Green Line from BU, get off at the Hynes Convention Center stop, which was on the corner of Mass Ave. and Newbury Street (pretty much right where Tower Records used to be) and then walk to Back Bay station from there. Either way, I would almost always cut through the Prudential Mall and then eventually the Copley Mall on my way to the train station.

 

 


The Copley Mall circa 2001. This was (and maybe still is?) the main mall atrium with the giant, two-floor waterfall. The Loews cinema was just behind and down a short concourse from where this photo was taken.

 


Now, in the Copley Mall, there was a restroom that I usually made a pitstop at before getting to Back Bay station because these bathrooms were a thousand times better than the bathrooms at Back Bay. Come to think of it, I can only think of maybe one or two times that I actually used the bathrooms at Back Bay, mainly out of desperation. I ALWAYS used the bathrooms in the Copley Mall.

 

The reason why I’m telling you all this is because the bathrooms in the Copley Mall were located in a corridor that was adjacent to the Loews Copley Mall cinema. This meant that I always knew what movies were playing there …

 

And, occasionally, there would be something there that I wanted to see.

 

There may have been more, but I can definitely remember at least three movies that I saw at the Copley Mall theater sometime between the years 2000-2004. I think on all three occasions, I saw these movies either in the late morning or early afternoon on a Friday. For much of my freshman and sophomore year of college, I would have one or two early classes on Friday morning and then have the rest of the day off. Since I didn’t feel like going home right away and I certainly wasn’t up for studying at the library on a Friday afternoon, I would often go see a movie somewhere in the city, sometimes at the Boston Common theater, other times at the Fenway theater (another beautiful stadium-seating theater), occasionally at the Kendall Landmark theater in Cambridge (another indie movie theater in Kendall Square), but, yes, sometimes even at the Copley theater.

 

The three movies I remember seeing at the Copley Loews were Shadow of the VampireAmerican Splendorand Ghost World.

 

I bet you thought I was going to say Wet Hot American Summer.

 

No, regrettably, I never saw Wet Hot American Summer at the Copley Loews theater, but the reason why I told this whole story was because Wet Hot American Summer was definitely playing at the Copley theater in mid-2001 and it was while I was at the theater seeing another movie that I first heard of Wet Hot American Summer.

 

I had to research release dates to confirm this, but it must have been while I was seeing Ghost World at the Copley Loews when I happened to notice that one of the other movies playing at the theater was Wet Hot American Summer. The name of the movie sounded intriguing to me. I think I even saw the movie poster somewhere in the cinema as well. The poster looked just as intriguing, if not more intriguing. It looked fun, anyway.

 

The original movie poster for Wet Hot American Summer.


But, again, I never did actually see the movie in the theater. Yes, the title sounded intriguing, but I never looked any further into what the film was about or whether it was worth my time and/or the $6 or so it cost for a matinee movie ticket at that theater in those days.

 

Although I do regret not seeing the movie in the theater, it may have been better for me to wait until it was out on video anyway, because what I didn’t realize at the time was that this movie wouldn’t only be best appreciated with multiple viewings but it would also be a movie I would want to see again as soon as I finished it.

 

For whatever reason, I don’t think I saw Wet Hot American Summer until 2004, three years after its theatrical release. I think this was because I mostly forgot about the movie until one day in September 2004 when I was in a video store called Massive Video in Norfolk, MA. Massive Video was a great video store, but I mostly only rented non-new-releases there because they had a great deal: two DVDs for a dollar. Wet Hot American Summer was not a new release at the time, so I rented it along with another movie for only a dollar.

 

Rentals in hand, I went home, popped the Wet Hot American Summer DVD into the DVD drive of my Mac PowerBook G3 laptop and Wet Hot American Summer instantly became a favorite movie of mine, one that I knew I was likely going to watch time and time and time and, yes, time again.

 

The premise of the movie was simple and simple is always good. It’s the last day of summer camp and all sorts of fun activities are happening during the course of the day, amongst campers, counselors, camp directors and even the mess hall workers. It’s Meatballs meets Ernest Goes to Camp meets Sleepaway Camp. But it’s a parody of those movies. And a parody of 1980s teen movies in general. I think that pretty much sums Wet Hot American Summer up.

 

I can’t remember if I knew beforehand or when I actually realized that the movie was made by members of The State, which was an early-to-mid-1990s MTV sketch comedy show that I was a VERY big fan of. Statemember David Wain directed Wet Hot American Summer and co-wrote it with another State member Michael Showalter. Other State members featured in the film include Ken Marino, Michael Ian Black, Janeane Garofalo and Jo Lo Truglio.


 

 

Remember The State?

 


Overall, what I remember most about my experience first seeing Wet Hot American Summer is that I had never laughed so hard out loud at a movie before. I know that sounds like a dramatic exaggeration, but I will tell you exactly what scene I was laughing so hard at:

 

About halfway through the movie, there is a chase sequence between the characters Victor Kulak (played by Ken Marino) and Neil (played by Jo Lo Truglio). The two characters play camp counselors who take a group of campers off the campgrounds to go rafting on a nearby river. As soon as he drops Neil and the campers off at the river, Victor ditches them all and runs back to camp so he can lose his virginity to a girl named Abby Bernstein before she hooks up with somebody else. Neil then decides to hop off the raft while it’s floating down the river, also ditching the campers, so he can chase after Victor. He conveniently finds a motorcycle off the river and hunts Victor down. The chase sequence is on and it’s set to “Turn Me Loose” by Loverboy.


 

 

The chase sequence.

 


During the chase, we cut back and forth between Victor running and Neil chasing him on the motorcycle. There are blatant continuity errors, like Neil’s hair constantly going from long to short, the joke being that most of the motorcycling is being done by a stunt double. Also, in one shot, Neal is right behind Victor, almost within reach of him, but then in the next shot he is far away, then in another shot, he is back to being right up on him and so forth.

 

The funniest part of the sequence or at least what I thought was the funniest part when I first saw the movie was the very end where Victor comes upon a small, rectangular stack of hay in the middle of the road. He can of course run around it with ease and even hop over it with ease, but this hay stops him short as though it is a huge obstacle in his way. He decides the only thing to do is leap over it and this is done in dramatic slow-motion, as though it is an amazing stunt, when, in fact, all he’s doing is hopping over the foot-high haystack. Then Neil drives up to the block of hay on his motorcycle and skids to a stop when he of course can easily drive right around it. But once he stops, he gestures a “dammit,” as though he is stuck and can’t go any further. Then there is a close-up of Neil’s face where he shakes his head, smiles and has a look that basically says, “You got away again, Victor. You clever son of a bitch.”

 

Seeing the sequence for yourself is obviously better than me describing it, but let me tell you: I must have rewound the DVD more than a dozen times to rewatch that chase sequence, especially the hay part and even especially the part where Neil is shaking his head and grinning, knowing that Victor has gotten away from him … THIS TIME. I can’t remember ever laughing so hard out loud in my life.

 

Later in the movie, there is a montage sequence parody that I may have laughed just as hard at. The character Coop (played by Michael Showalter) has just gotten rejected by the girl of his dreams and he’s sitting in the woods, bawling his eyes out. The head camp cook Gene (played by the hilarious Christopher Meloni) comes out of nowhere, sits next to Coop and says, “It isn’t about the girl, Coop.” Coop says, “It isn’t?” Gene says, “Well, it is … but see if you can follow me here. It … isn’t.” Then Coop says he finally understands, “Oh. So it is … AND it isn’t.” Gene nods and says, “You are ready to be taught the New Way.” Coop then says, “Will you help teach me about this … what is it … a New Way?” Then the movie cuts to a gratuitous montage sequence of Coop being taught a “New Way”/being trained for something/doing other random stuff that makes no sense whatsoever, including learning dance moves, going for a hike through the woods led by Gene and participating in what-appear-to-be AA meetings. The montage then ends with a big slow-motion jump in the air where Coop and Gene high-five each other and then a freeze frame. It’s so funny because it makes absolutely no sense and it reminds you of all the other montage sequences you’ve seen in ‘80s movies that were so ridiculous.


 

 

The montage sequence.

 


I rewound and rewatched this montage sequence probably as much as I rewatched the chase sequence. And then I rewatched the movie again … and again … and again …

 

… rented it multiple times …

 

Years later, it was on Netflix and I watched it repeatedly while it was on that platform.

 

And then, many years after that, I bought a DVD copy.

 

The more I watched the movie, the less I laughed at the obvious humor like the chase sequence and montage sequence, but the more I noticed the movie’s more subtle, sophisticated humor, humor that is next-level in my opinion. 

 

Here are a couple of examples:

 

Early in the movie, there is a scene where we first see Coop interact with the aforementioned girl he’s crushing on, a fellow camp counselor named Katie (played by Marguerite Moreau). There is some awkward interaction between them, Katie says she is determined to find Coop a girlfriend and then Coop says, all cutesy-wootsy, “Well I guess I’ll cancel that order of onions and Limburger cheese I made for lunch today.” Katie forces out a laugh, they start to part ways but then, as Katie walks off, Coop yells out, “I want you inside me!” Katie isn’t sure she heard right, she turns around and says, “What?!” Coop stumbles with his words and says, “Hm? Oh, hey what’s up? Um, I was just … um … from before.” Then Katie walks away and Coop adorably gestures in a manner that basically says, “Oh man, I’m sooooo crushing on her.”


 

 

The “I want you inside me” scene.

 


The reason why this scene is so funny is because of how shocking the “I want you inside me!” line is within the context of the scene. Coop is presented to us as the underdog character, the nice, wholesome, PG-rated protagonist everyone is rooting for to get the girl. But then, completely out of character, he yells out, “I want you inside me!” Not only does this make no sense (shouldn’t she be the one saying that to him?) but it is so abruptly R-rated or even X-rated that it’s so hilarious. It’s almost like the awkward Coop had heard that line be said somewhere, didn’t quite know what it meant, but then thought it was completely appropriate to say to the girl he is crushing on.

 

Later in the movie, there is another scene between Coop and Katie that is basically a parody of a scene we see in pretty much every Rom-Com movie when the guy and gal are starting to fall for each other. Coop and Katie are laying on the grass and have a conversation with each other that not only makes no sense but is actually completely incoherent. Yet they seem to be oblivious to all this and, by the end of it, they still seem to be falling for each other in classic Rom-Com fashion.

 

The scene goes something like this:

 

Katie asks Coop if he would go out with Susie (the character played by Amy Poehler in the movie). Coop says that he and Susie went out the first summer he was at camp, when they were 10 years old. Katie asks if they went all the way and Coop says that …

 

“Yeah, you bet we went all the way. We went all the way. And all the way back, too. We did doggy style. Pony style. Style Council, that’s a good band. They’re hot right now. Human League. They have some good stuff. League of Nations. That brings in the whole thing of the United Nations. And then that brings in the whole category of countries. I mean, where to start? Well, the obvious one, the birthplace of spaghetti and pasta, all that oily stuff. Italy. Now you go.”

 

Katie smiles at him. “Um,” she says. “How about Italy?”

 

“Yeah, good! It’s safe. Plus, I kind of paved the way with that one, but …”

 

Katie then gives him ‘the look,’ the look we’ve all seen before in every Rom-Com. The “I’m falling for him” look.

 

And Coop smiles at her and says, “What … what?”

 

I didn’t fully appreciate this scene until years after first seeing the movie. Actually, it didn’t even stand out to me until watching the movie very recently. I think, when you watch this scene, you just assume that what they’re talking about makes sense because they play it so straight and when we see them starting to “fall for” each other by the end of the scene, it’s so genuine that it’s pretty much indistinguishable from any other Rom-Com. It’s only until you take the time to carefully listen to what they’re saying to each other that you realize nothing makes any sense. Once you come to this realization, but also consider that the scene took itself so seriously and played out like a scene from any other Rom-Com, you are hit with a burst of laughter unlike you’ve ever experienced before.

 

This is a level of comedy rarely seen in any other movie. Maybe Airplane! comes close, which is a parody movie where the actors play the movie’s absurd humor very straight, but even Airplane! is probably not as subtle as what you often see in Wet Hot American Summer.

 

This isn’t to say, however, that the humor in Wet Hot American Summer is always so sophisticated. There are plenty of slapstick-type gags in the movie that you laugh at on a shallow level (think Coop stepping in a pail/slipping on a banana peel/falling into a kiddie pool or the camper lighting his fart on fire at the talent show). I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are probably three levels of humor in the film. The shallower humor (like the Coop pratfall or talent show fart gag), the somewhat-more-sophisticated humor (like the chase and montage sequence parodies) and the super-subtle humor (the interactions between Coop and Katie), the latter of which give you the biggest laughs when the humor finally hits you.


 

 

Coop’s slapstick-y pratfall.

 


It’s hard to say objectively that Wet Hot American Summer is one of the best comedies of all time, but I absolutely think it is and I’m not saying this to be dramatic. It is definitely at least in my top-five list of favorite comedies of all time and, honestly, very close to my number-one. Heck, it may even be my number-one.

 

Twenty-five years after its theatrical release, Wet Hot American Summer is definitely acknowledged both by critics and “the people” to be a hilarious cult classic, and although the appreciation of this movie has certainly grown over the years, I still don’t think it fully gets the credit it deserves. What movie is objectively considered to be the best comedy of all time by the American Film Institute? Some Like It Hot, something like that? Ok, that’s not a bad movie, but Wet Hot American Summer blows Some Like It Hot out of the water, in my humble opinion. If you haven’t seen it recently, watch Wet Hot American Summer again and keep a look out for the more subtle humor that often goes overlooked.

 

And if you’ve never seen the movie before? 

 

Watch it immediately. You are in for a treat. In many ways, this could be the beginning of an entirely new chapter in your life. Since first watching the movie back in 2004, I have seen Wet Hot American Summer a zillion times. And even though I’ve seen the movie so many times, I either still find funny moments that I hadn’t noticed before or moments I HAD noticed before that hit my funny bone in a whole different way. There aren’t many movies that can withstand the test of multiple viewings, but this is definitely one of those movies that only gets better the more times you watch it.



 

 

MATT BURNS is the author of several novels, including Weird MonsterSupermarket Zombies!The Woman and the Dragon and Johnny Cruise. He’s also written numerous memoirs, including GARAGE MOVIE: My Adventures Making Weird FilmsMy Raging Case of Beastie FeverJungle F’ng Fever: My 30-Year Love Affair with Guns N’ Roses and I Turned into a Misfit! Check out these books (and many more) on his Amazon author page HERE.

 

 


Other trending articles by Matt Burns that may be of interest to you:

 

NOT PLAYING IT SAFE: How Todd Haynes’ Film Was Used to ‘Deprogram’ Me and My Fellow Film Students

 

How I Got into the Films of John Cassavetes

 

If I May Say a Few Words About FLIGHT OF THE NAVIGATOR

 

35 YEARS OF TURTLE POWER: A Tribute to 1990’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Movie


Revisiting the Blair Witch Project


My Childhood Obsession with Rambo

 

Video Store Memories


Heeeeeeeeeeeeeere’s Charlie (a story about Burns’ recurring nightmares featuring Charlie Chaplin)


CAPE CODDING IT: A Cape Cod Vacation Memoir


GREYHOUNDING IT, BABY! A Guide to taking a Greyhound Bus Long Distances

 

Visiting Mom in the ICU (short story contest winner)

 

A Love Letter to the Emerald Square Mall (about the death of the shopping mall age)


NEVER FORGET the Fun-O-Rama (a traveling carnival memoir)


Some Wicked Good Times: A Love Letter to Newbury Comics


PROXOS IN THE PLEX: A Goldeneye 007 N64 Retrospective

 

100 DAYS of ZELDA: Revisiting Ocarina of Time


I Dream of Dream Machine (a memoir of the local video arcade)

 

I USED TO BE A GAMER: The 8-bit Nintendo Years


Skateboarding in the 1990s


WAAF Goes Off the Air


Remembering That Time I Tried to Stop a Shoplifter at the Wrentham Outlets


The Strange, Surreal Moment of Being Called a DILF Inside a Panera Bread Restaurant on a Wednesday Afternoon


Weird Times en la Weirdioteca

 

RIP PowerBook G3

 

THE AUDIO BOOK EXPERIMENT: Tips and Advice on How to Record Your First Audio Book


Getting Your Novel Done

 

Making Your Good Writing Great


Getting Your Screenplay Done

 

Writing the Sequel

 

Writing the Trilogy


No-No, Learn to Love the Rejection: Some Sage Advice for Writers in Search of an Agent or Publisher

 

The Story Behind Supermarket Zombies!


The Story Behind The Woman and the Dragon

 


NOTES:


[i] Newman, Ron. “Copley Place Cinemas.” Cinema Treasureshttps://cinematreasures.org/theaters/9139. Accessed on 15 Oct. 2025.

Monday, March 23, 2026

NOT PLAYING IT SAFE: How Todd Haynes’ Film Was Used to ‘Deprogram’ Me and My Fellow Film Students

When I was in film school at Boston University way back in 2002, the very first class we had to take as film majors was an introductory course called UNDERSTANDING FILM. This was a film studies course where we watched, discussed, analyzed and wrote about various movies that were screened in class.

And the very first movie we watched in this class was the 1995 movie Safe by Todd Haynes.


 

The eerie movie poster for Safe.



Every student in the class thought this was a strange choice. A typical first film for an introductory film course is likely Citizen KaneCasablanca or something by Hitchcock or Kubrick. Safe, however, was an atypical choice and seemingly random.

 

Most students in my class despised the film. They thought it was boring, strange, uncomfortable, annoying and inaccessible.

 

As for me, I didn’t hate the film. I was actually intrigued by it, even though I was admittedly expecting to be watching a more traditional Hollywood movie.

 

Thinking back on all this now, almost 25 years later, the choice of watching Safe as a first film in an introductory film course feels even more atypical than it did then. I recently revisited the movie, which was available to view on Tubi, and I found it to be an even odder film than I remembered it being. To show this movie to a bunch of 19-year-old film students as the very first film in an introductory film course was a bold move for sure, almost like a (friendly) F-U to the student filmmaker, like the professor was saying, “You thought you’d be learning about how to make films like Hitchcock or Kubrick or maybe even like Spielberg, right? Well, what do you think of THIS sh**?!”

 

It seems kind of mean to subject young aspiring film students to a film like Safe right out of the gate, but, in hindsight, I think I understand why it was done: 

 

To deprogram the film students.

 

But before I explain what I mean by “deprogramming,” let me first provide a quick synopsis of Safe’s plot.

 

Set in the late-1980s, the movie is about a homemaker named Carol White (played by Julianne Moore) living in an affluent section of the San Fernando valley. Her husband is a successful something-or-other; I don’t think it’s ever specified what he does other than he has “deadlines.” Overall, Carol is part of a rather shallow, materialistic world. She has a circle of friends whom she does aerobics with and goes to baby showers with, but she hardly connects with them and the relationship with these women is rather superficial.

 

Not long into the film, Carol begins experiencing strange symptoms like coughing, vomiting, asthma attacks and even seizure-like episodes. She sees her doctor about these symptoms, but he doesn’t find that there’s anything wrong with her. Carol and her husband are relieved at first, but her symptoms persist, and, in fact, they keep getting worse and worse. Her doctor still doesn’t find anything wrong, though, and he suggests Carol see a psychiatrist. 

 

Carol does see the psychiatrist, but he ends up being just as unhelpful as her physician. Carol’s symptoms just keep intensifying and, eventually, it becomes clear that she has some sort of mystery illness that cannot be easily explained. 

 

After seeing a flyer in her health club about environmental illness, Carol attends a seminar about the topic and she gradually becomes convinced that she is allergic to various pollutants as well as chemicals in her environment. She starts to wear a mask and carry around an oxygen tank, but she still doesn’t feel all that better. 

 

Things come to a head when Carol is at the dry-cleaner’s one day while they are fumigating the building, she collapses, has an all-out seizure from the chemical exposure and ends up in the hospital. While in the hospital, she sees a news story about a chemical-free reservation called “Wrenwood” that is a kind of safe space for people with chemical sensitivities. Carol decides to go and live at Wrenwood where she becomes part of a community of fellow chemically-sensitive people.

 

At Wrenwood, Carol hears a lot of preaching from the chemical-free community’s founder Peter Dunning about the importance of “loving yourself” and how this is the key to healing from illness. This New Agey, self-help approach, however, ultimately seems just as unhelpful as the advice Carol received from her more conventional doctors.

 

The end of the film is haunting because Carol ends up saying “I love you” to herself while looking into a mirror, but she says this while living in an igloo-like cabin that is safe from any and all environmental toxins, yes, but completely isolating for her. Even if she does now actually “love herself,” which may or may not be the case, it doesn’t appear that she has had any breakthrough in both her physical health or her spiritual health. After all, in the very last shot we see of her before the end credits, Carol looks like absolute hell.


 

The last shot of Carol looking into the mirror.


 

So that is more or less the plot of Safe. Needless to say, this is not a traditional film. Again, it is odd to say the very least. For some viewers, it is annoyingly odd and this was how most of my fellow film students felt about the film at BU. For other viewers, however, it is “odd” simply because it goes against everything a traditional Hollywood movie stands for, but they don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing. In fact, I believe this was the very reason why the film was shown to my introductory film studies course right at the outset: because it completely subverted everything that we thought we knew about what a movie should or shouldn’t be.

 

I don’t think most of us are consciously aware of how “trained” we are by Hollywood movies. Most of us are exposed to them at a very young age and probably see dozens of movies in a given year. Some see more, some see less, but we all watch a lot of movies over our lifetime. And most Hollywood movies are a different version of the same story. You have a traditional three-act structure, usually a well-defined “hero” or protagonist who we are rooting for, a well-defined “villain” or antagonist who we are NOT rooting for, a clear goal with conflict getting in the way of this goal, well-defined character arcs where the protagonist changes in some positive way by the end of the movie, and there is also usually some closure by the end of the movie as well.

 

In short, the story in a Hollywood movie generally needs to be “clear.” Ambiguity is seen as a bad thing, and this is what makes a movie like Safe so anti-Hollywood:

 

Because the movie is nothing but ambiguous.

 

First of all, there is the movie’s tone and genre. The film opens with a synth-heavy score that is dark and foreboding (I love this score, by the way). It sounds much like the music you would hear in a David Lynch film (like Mulholland Drive). The score definitely sounds like something out of a horror movie, but is Safereally a horror movie? Well, in a sense, it kiiiiind of is, but certainly not a traditional one. We keep on waiting for something super-dark to happen, like a murder or something, but we are ultimately denied this expectation. It’s like we’re given a bunch of horror foreplay without the climax. And we’re left feeling frustrated or at least confused.


 

 

The opening title sequence of the movie with the foreboding score.



 

 

A high-quality recording of the synth-heavy musical score (because it’s so good).

 


Then, of course, there is the “illness” itself, which Haynes purposely makes ambiguous. We never know for sure what is wrong with Carol White. Is she really chemically sensitive? Does she have a psychological disorder? Is she just unhappy with her shallow and overall meaningless life as a San Fernando homemaker? There is never a clear explanation and we’re left in the end without resolution.

 

Most ambiguous of all, however, are the characters themselves. We never quite know what to make of Carol White. Should we like her? Not like her? Because we’ve been so conditioned by Hollywood films, we want to like the main character of the movie and, although we do kind of sympathize with Carol, she seems so emotionally distant that it’s hard to get to a place where we are all in on rooting for her to win. Just when we think we may like her by the end of the film, she has a super-awkward birthday speech, parroting all the self-help advice she thinks the people at Wrenwood want to hear her say, and she looks so ridiculous that we find ourselves being turned off from her again.


 

 

Carol’s super-awkward birthday speech near the end of the movie.

 


Then there’s the character of Carol’s husband. How are we supposed to view him? In a traditional Hollywood movie, he would be the antagonist, but we never quite get there with him. There are some scenes where he comes off as insensitive and self-absorbed regarding Carol’s health situation, but then these scenes are quickly countered by scenes where he comes off as loving, caring and supportive of her situation. We keep on thinking that a scene is coming where his frustration with her mystery illness will reach a breaking point, he’ll tell Carol she’s crazy, cheat on her or divorce her. But nothing like this ever happens. We go through the whole film feeling unsure about what we’re supposed to think of him and we never get a clear answer by the end.

 

When it comes to Wrenwood, we’re hoping that this chemically-free sanctuary will be the key to saving Carol from her health crisis. But we never feel quite sure about who these Wrenwood characters are either. Some of them come off as crazy while others come off as extremely compassionate. Then there’s the founder of Wrenwood, Peter Dunning, and we never know how to feel about him either. On one hand, he seems caring and compassionate, but then he sometimes comes off as being a self-help, New-Agey, snake oil salesman. Our trust in this character is undermined even more when Carol points out the huge house he lives in, insinuating that Peter is a kind of con-artist taking advantage of the sick Wrenwood residents. But, again, as soon as we grow suspicious of him, we see the compassionate side of him again. He honors Carol for her birthday, eats dinner with and even dances with all the Wrenwood residents. What the hell are we supposed to think of him, anyway?!


 

 

The complete dinner/birthday party scene with Peter Dunning dancing with the residents.

 


The ultimate result of all this ambiguity in the movie is that the viewer feels kind of disoriented. One minute we think we understand who these characters are, then we don’t, then we think we do again, and then we don’t. The world of Safe is the furthest thing from being black and white. It is a constant gray, much like … well, reality itself.

 

So, if traditional Hollywood films condition us into thinking reality is defined by clarity (i.e. well-defined heroes, villains, character arcs, conflicts, resolutions etc.), a movie like Safe is the ultimate deconditioning film. It is a movie that deprograms the Hollywood mind.

 

And this is exactly why I feel my professor wanted to show a movie like Safe as the very first film in our UNDERSTANDING FILM course: because it deprogrammed our minds. Twenty years of being exposed to nothing but Hollywood films got us thinking that movies had to be a certain way, but a film like Safe reminded us that movies could be something completely different, something that was truer to the ambiguity and grayness of actual reality.

 

In retrospect, watching a film like Safe at BU makes more sense knowing what I know now about who was in charge of the Boston University film studies program at the time: a man named Ray Carney. Carney is known to be a renowned expert on John Cassavetes (his book Cassavetes on Cassavetes, which I highly recommend, is his masterwork). Cassavetes’ films are the epitome of ambiguous cinema. Although the two filmmakers have different styles, Cassavetes’ characters and Haynes’ characters (at least in Safe) are very gray. I think it’s clear that Carney’s intention was to essentially design UNDERSTANDING FILM to be a kind of re-education camp for film students. The message was, basically, “We want to teach you how to make films, but, first, we must show you that a film can be more than what you think it can be!”

 

Indeed, watching Safe is a good “re-education film,” no doubt about that, but does that mean it’s actually a good film? I mean, is it good simply because it subverts a viewer’s expectations of what a film should be? Or is it a good film because it’s simply a good film? I actually don’t know the answer to this question, because when all is said and done, I’m not sure I get a whole lot out of the film other than the fact that it challenged my expectations of what it was going to be.

 

I do, however, appreciate the film, if for no other reason than because it is so boldly different from most films out there. It’s a breath of fresh air when you watch a movie that reminds you that you don’t always have to provide an audience with easy answers and explanations. Much like a David Lynch film, you don’t really know what to take away from a movie like Safe or what the movie is even actually about, but it still leaves an impression, if not on a conscious level, then on a subconscious one. This is why, about 25 years later, I’m still thinking about this film even though I still don’t quite know what to make of it.

 

 

 

MATT BURNS is the author of several novels, including Weird MonsterSupermarket Zombies!, The Woman and the Dragon and Johnny Cruise. He’s also written numerous memoirs, including GARAGE MOVIE: My Adventures Making Weird FilmsMy Raging Case of Beastie FeverJungle F’ng Fever: My 30-Year Love Affair with Guns N’ Roses and I Turned into a Misfit! Check out these books (and many more) on his Amazon author page HERE.

 

 


Other trending articles by Matt Burns that may be of interest to you:

 

How I Got into the Films of John Cassavetes

 

If I May Say a Few Words About FLIGHT OF THE NAVIGATOR

 

35 YEARS OF TURTLE POWER: A Tribute to 1990’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Movie


Revisiting the Blair Witch Project


My Childhood Obsession with Rambo

 

Video Store Memories


Heeeeeeeeeeeeeere’s Charlie (a story about Burns’ recurring nightmares featuring Charlie Chaplin)


CAPE CODDING IT: A Cape Cod Vacation Memoir


GREYHOUNDING IT, BABY! A Guide to taking a Greyhound Bus Long Distances

 

Visiting Mom in the ICU (short story contest winner)

 

A Love Letter to the Emerald Square Mall (about the death of the shopping mall age)


NEVER FORGET the Fun-O-Rama (a traveling carnival memoir)


Some Wicked Good Times: A Love Letter to Newbury Comics


PROXOS IN THE PLEX: A Goldeneye 007 N64 Retrospective

 

100 DAYS of ZELDA: Revisiting Ocarina of Time


I Dream of Dream Machine (a memoir of the local video arcade)

 

I USED TO BE A GAMER: The 8-bit Nintendo Years


Skateboarding in the 1990s


WAAF Goes Off the Air


Remembering That Time I Tried to Stop a Shoplifter at the Wrentham Outlets


The Strange, Surreal Moment of Being Called a DILF Inside a Panera Bread Restaurant on a Wednesday Afternoon


Weird Times en la Weirdioteca

 

RIP PowerBook G3

 

THE AUDIO BOOK EXPERIMENT: Tips and Advice on How to Record Your First Audio Book


Getting Your Novel Done

 

Making Your Good Writing Great


Getting Your Screenplay Done

 

Writing the Sequel

 

Writing the Trilogy


No-No, Learn to Love the Rejection: Some Sage Advice for Writers in Search of an Agent or Publisher

 

The Story Behind Supermarket Zombies!


The Story Behind The Woman and the Dragon