On the 30th anniversary of the release of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", Nancy Allen (star of the film) and Bob Gale (Associate Producer) attended a screening in Hollywood to tout the classic favorite and mix-and-mingle with fans.
There was a bit of a buzz when film buffs spied Allen out-front of the theatre last night.
"She looks good," one gushed to his pal next to me in a line that snaked down the street a bit.
A few brought old Beatles Albums and memorabilia for Ms. Allen to sign.
The anxious crowd was in high spirits.
Although I caught the film on the idiot box on a couple of occasions when I was a younger man (it's always been a favorite of mine) I never actually viewed it before on the wide screen.
The hilarious comedy focuses on a handful of teenage girls (who head off on a wild sloppy ride to New York City in an undertaker's limo) with bold-faced schemes to meet up with the objects of their passion - the pop darlings, the Beatles - when the Fab Four descend on American shores amid a frenzy of fan hysteria to perform on the popular Ed Sullivan Show.
Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale (known as Bob & Bob) happened to peruse the jacket-cover for an old Beatles vinyl LP one fine day - and eureka! - drummed up the idea for the script which they were originally paid $15,000.00 to pen. (split two ways)
Originally, the project was sold to Warner Brothers.
But, there was one hitch.
The legal department would not give the green light to start production until the music rights were secured from the Beatles.
"Without the rights to the music, there is no film," execs argued.
Tantalized by the 2 1/2 million budget, Bob & Bob reluctantly agreed to jump onboard, in spite of the little legal snafu!
Funny that!
The project ended up over at Universal under a three-picture deal that Spielberg had been signed to.
In fact - "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" - was the first movie to display a credit crawl for the new young hot shot.
It read: Steven Spielberg Presents.
Even with the green light, though, there were problems.
In the original script - there were no actual visuals of the Beatles until the end of the movie when the music dynamos are finally depicted as they performed that fateful night on the landmark Ed Sullivan Show.
The execs at the studio cautioned the director that he could not film the Beatles on the CBS "monitors" as originally intended.
"The Beatles might sue us," they whined as they wrung their hands in dismay.
In the alternative - the suits gave explicit instructions to show audience reactions to the Beatles off-camera performance - only.
Mr. Gale was quick to recall his concerns.
"If there was this big build-up through the film, and then we didn't actually show the Beatles at the end, the audience would be pissed."
But, Bob and Bob finally shrugged and forged ahead optimistically.
Fortunately, when production wrapped, studio head - Sid Scheinberg - was inclined to agree that without the infamous Beatle footage from the celebrated Ed Sullivan Show, the film was a big let down.
"Ok. Use the footage," he allegedly instructed.
"At least if we get sued, we'll get the four Beatles back together again - in Court - and I'll have the rights to the courtroom footage."
Unfortunately - from the get-go - the execs didn't "get" the picture, according to Gale.
"That's why they don't make movies. And, why they're execs," he laughed.
To add further injury to insult, the zany comedy was never properly promoted.
In spite of the fact established music magazines gave "Hand" great reviews - according to Ms. Allen - the publicity push was pretty lackluster.
"They spent $15 mil promoting that piece of crap Jaws II. But, were reluctant to spend any money on I Wanna Hold Your Hand," Mr. Gale quipped, with an obvious bad taste in his mouth.
In the Q & A session, Gale and Allen offered up a few juicy production tidbits which titillated the audience.
In one scene where the Beatles exit at the rear of the Hotel near the end of the movie, the production team suddenly realized that a piece of wardrobe for a main character was not on set.
Because there would be a glaring problem with continuity - the producers fathomed up a way out of the dilemma that was ingenuous - to say the least.
As the Beatles concert was about to broadcast, the Ed Sullivan impersonator recommends that the impatient fan take off his jacket, and settle down a tad.
"It was a cosmic moment," chortled Gale.
For the most part, the producers remained true to the script.
As usual, during on-set filming, the director took advantage of unexpected events to add schtick as opportunities presented themselves.
In one scene, as a food cart passes in the hallway - for instance - there is some fun fluff with a lamp which triggers gales of laughter from filmgoers.
"That was all Dick Miller off the cuff."
Gale gave kudos to the "girls" for being quick on visual acting cues, as well.
Most females hate the 3 Stooges, he asserted.
"But these gals got it. Those scenes with the three heads popping out along the side of the door frame? We stole it all from the Stooges."
The actresses understood what they were striving for.
For those who may be inclined to shake their heads in disbelief - over all the wild on-camera Beatle hysteria depicted on film - take note.
Beatlemania has neverbeen better-captured realistically elsewhere on film - to my knowledge - than it has been here.
In fact - when a haircut scene flashed up on the screen - it was a poignant moment for me.
One of the characters is a boy about twelve or thirteen who is being harassed by his father to get his locks shorn.
In a well-crafted side-splitting sub-plot, the father holds the lad's tickets to the Beatles concert hostage, until the rebellious youth complies with his demands.
In what is arguably one of the funniest moments in the film - the father drags the hapless kid into the barber shop kicking and screaming - where a one-eyed Barber wickedly prepares to carry out the dastardly deed.
The boy is plunked into one of those old stand-up chairs - with a mechanical arm that ratchets up the seat with a jerk of the hand - and the ordeal begins.
Well, almost. Won't spoil it for 'ya, though.
But, it's classic filmmaking at its best, I assure you.
Actually, the scene caused me to flash back to my own youth in the late sixties.
All the boys were growing their hair long at school, so I was inclined to follow suit.
Peer pressure, 'ya know?
I was under the care of two guardians at the time (who couldn't figure the tribal youth thing) who began to insist I cut my hair as it started to fly-away in a shaggy mess down over my ears and forehead.
Although I was given the funds to pay for the haircut - I hid out-of-doors until the barbershop closed - before heading home for dinner.
Finally, one dark December night, I was given an ultimatum.
"Get your hair cut tomorrow, or else!"
It was the "or else" part that frightened me.
Coincidentally, I had an appointment with a counselor the next day.
I explained my dilemma.
"Are you going to get your hair cut?" the middle-aged man quizzed me with a slight smile on his face.
"Well - " I stammered, as I fidgetted in my seat a trifle.
"I don't want them to get mad at me. Or, get into trouble."
At this juncture, he leaned over the table into my face, and hissed at me.
"You're a coward."
"No, I'm not," I reacted somewhat emotionally.
"It's your hair. If you don't want to cut it, then don't," he commanded me.
So, that night - with new-found courage in my heart - I headed home sans haircut.
At the dinner table that night, the tension was almost unbearable as we ate quietly.
Then, out-of-the-blue, my male guardian made the first move.
"Why didn't you get you hair cut?"
I paused a sec, took a deep breath, then uttered up a response.
"Because I didn't want to."
The silence was so loud it was deafening.
Then, after what seemed an eternity, my guardian jumped up and started shouting.
"He doesn't want to cut it. Who does he think he is? Nobody does anything I say around here," he angrily shouted at no one in particular.
He dashed out of the kitchen into the living-room with his plate of dinner in hand.
When he slammed the dish down on the coffee-table - it broke into a thousand itsy-bitsy little pieces - and the once piping-hot food was catapulted here and there (not unlike bits of raw flesh) about the still room.
That night, I packed a few things into a small bag, and slipped out the back door.
Within hours, I was on my way to Vancouver, to start a new life with a band of hippies on the West Coast I got wind of a few days earlier on the news.
Yes, a haircut incident ended up changing my whole life!
But, getting back to the movie theatre.
"I Wanna Hold Your Hand" was on a double-bill with 1941.
I wasn't much interested in that project, so I started to put my notebook away, when the discussion turned in that direction.
But, a few comments made by Allen and Gale caused me to rethink that.
"Bob Zemeckis should have directed 1941. The original script was good, but Spielberg turned it into something else," Allen flippantly remarked.
Gale was inclined to note at this juncture that Steven had just come off of the success of - "Close Encounters" and "Jaws" - and that he had a lot of clout in the industry as a result.
"He'd be out at some Sushi Bar on Sunset or around-town at an event. When he'd run into an actor, he'd make his pitch."
"Wanna be in my new movie?"
Both continued to make negative comments about Spielberg's focus on the "gags" in 1941.
"Bob and I were into development of character. But Steven wanted all these cameos."
In one recall, Gale actually inferred that Spielberg didn't know what he was doing.
For instance, the little whirlwind noted that the studio wanted to minimize costs at one juncture; therefore, there was a request from the higher-ups for script cuts.
When the writers scaled back ten pages of material, Spielberg allegedly ignored the pleas to forgo on shooting those scenes.
"Later, all the scenes he shot ended up being cut."
In another scenario, where Spielberg wanted material written for Slim Pickens, Gale said the B & B team flatly refused to flesh out the ideas for Steven.
"This is stupid," wailed Gale. "Get someone else to write it."
So, Steven did, apparently.
The celebrated director was then labelled self-indulgent and excessive by Gale and Allen.
At this juncture, I started to feel a little uncomfortable in my seat.
For good reason!
In a foundation course I took on filmmaking I signed on for last year, the instructor screened a video of Steven Spielberg in which the director openly discussed his work. In the revealing footage, Steven fessed up about a couple of flaws in at least two of his films that may have missed the naked eye of the casual filmgoer.
For example, in a TV Movie about road rage, he laughed that there was a reflection of himself in a telephone-booth window which wasn't noticed until the reel was screened back at the studio.
Also, in another project on a wider-screen in foreign theatres, Spielberg was spied crouching in the back seat of a vehicle with his camera in hand.
Because Mr. Spielberg is a down-to-earth guy, without a big ego, he was able to poke fun of himself and his filmmaking boners.
However, in view of the fact both Gale and Allen have benefitted from the generosity and success of Mr. Spielberg, I found their remarks in remarkably bad taste.
You don't put down an icon like Mr. Spielberg like these two nit-wits did last night without serious repercussions.
Mr. Spielberg is a kind warm-hearted man who has demonstrated a lot of compassion over the years - and likewise - given unselfishly and wholeheartedly to many individuals in the film industry and the community at large.
He deserved much better than what those two ungrateful lower-tier talents dolled out last night at the New Beverly Cinema in Hollywood.
Shame!
