The Affair

There's Always Vanilla tells the story of Chris, who has recently returned home after serving in the Army in Vietnam. He doesn't have a steady job, instead making money by playing guitar on other people's records and through a variety of other implied methods, eventually moving into the apartment of a young woman he meets and mooching off of her while he tries his hand at writing. His father offers him a secure "vanilla" job at his factory, but Chris rejects the offer as it doesn't suit his lifestyle.

There's not much new and exciting in this film. For the most part, it's all stuff we've already seen a thousand times before. The director, George Romero, called it his worst film, and it is often overlooked even by fans of his work. I would argue, however, that it is well worth watching for two reasons: the dialogue and the lead actor, Ray Laine.

Laine, who plays the sarcastic, apathetic Chris in one of his few film roles, delivers a fun, memorable performance. His acting is leaps and bounds ahead of the other cast members', and even if this film isn't fresh and original, his performance is. The film is never boring and the reason for that is Ray Laine, who dominates almost every scene.

It's hard not to like the character he brings to life and his dry humor and constant sarcasm, even if we almost never agree with his selfish actions and motivations. I must say, however, that the performance is a bit spotty and drags at times, but for the most part it is solid.

Similarly, the dialogue is almost always unrivaled, especially when it comes to nearly every single one of Laine's lines. He delivers most of them flawlessly and nearly all of them are extremely quotable, hilarious, or otherwise memorable. Several of the other characters have some great lines too.

One particularly memorable moment is when Chris appears at his girlfriend's apartment long after she's kicked him out. She asks him what he wants. She wants to know why he's come to bother her and he knows that that's what she's asking, but instead of answering that question he simply shrugs and replies: "A peanut butter sandwich." This film is by no means a masterpiece, but it is entertaining at the very least and watching it would not be a waste of time. And if you're in the mood for a fun, cheesy 70's B movie, you just might end up loving it. Sure, we've seen this same old story a hundred times before, but rarely, if ever, has it come packaged with the wonderful performance and brilliant dialogue found in There's Always Vanilla.

And I don't just mean the movie here. Though I guess I'm quite biased towards George Romero, so make of that what you will. But back to this, the second feature film effort and often times regarded as one of the lost films between Night of the living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. There only seemed to be two (this and another one called Jacks Wife by Romero, but many other titles by others, more on that on its own page), but recently another lost movie has surfaced and everything seems to point that it will be a gem and then some.

But back to this, a movie Romero himself may not have been too happy with the end result overall, but while this has flaws it also shows that he could do more than just horror. This attempt at a romantic movie is testament to that. Really good performances overall and an intriguing story (even if some themes became almost obselete a couple of years later). For all fans Romero and those who like their dramas to be weird. Not an instant classic, but more than decent

As said here previously, THERE'S ALWAYS VANILLA is a far better film than its reputation suggests (or director Romero himself apparently believes). As with all his best work, the writing is snappy and original, and quite unlike his best work, it proves that he could have (had?) a career with non-horror pictures if he wished so.

The film is told in flashback, with the main character (played excellently by Raymond Laine) ruminating in seemingly improvised sequences about his failed relationship, as the film illustrates its path. Fascinatingly, it resembles nothing less than Woody Allen's ANNIE HALL from some six years later - and is the far better movie. Where Allen's "see? I'm a lovable schnook" persona made me want to murder him when I revisited the film recently, Laine's portrayal of a sort of anti-hero in emotional turmoil here actually rings true.

Among the many pleasures in the film is seeing various cast members of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (to say nothing of lead actress Judith Steiner) back again in completely different roles. But there are also a host of terrific set pieces, a great, HUSBANDS-like night of stoned debauchery with father and son among them.

It doesn't all work - there are two pretty awful sentimental montages which fail - but there's plenty of spirited jump-cutting, frame flashes and other unique touches which show a thoughtful stylistic hand at play. I wish Romero hadn't stopped with this "failure" - he certainly would have made a more interesting ANNIE HALL.

There's Always Vanilla (1971) was a film that I saw a few years ago at a local video store. I was intrigued by the title and the clerk told me it was George A. Romero that was rarely seen. I felt at first that I've give it a try and scan it. I was surprised how good the movie was. Ray Laine is great as the lead in this movie. Judith Streiner (Ridley) plays the model/actress that he falls for with cameos by Russ Streiner, Bill Hinzmen and Richard France. I liked how Ray Laine's character addresses the camera giving the audience a insight into his life and times. Romero's camera work, direction and editing are real good in this flick. I enjoyed the social commentary and the ending. I thought it would be a snooze fest but once again Romero proved me wrong.

The title refers to a line in the movie that Laine's father tells him when he sees him for advice. The actor who plays his father is also great. Try and get a hold of it!!

Highly recommended.

There's Always Vanilla (1971)

** (out of 4)

George A. Romero's follow-up to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is about as different as you can get but, as the director stated, he didn't want to become known simply for making horror movies so what we got is a romantic- drama. The story follows Chris Bradley (Raymond Laine) who is just returning from Vietnam and spending most of his time with drug dealers and strippers. He eventually meets a model/actress (Judith Ridley) and the two hit it off until she gets pregnant and things start to change. For over thirty years this here was the hardest Romero film to see and it's one that he often calls his very worst when asked during interviews. I think the legendary horror director is being a tad bit harsh because there are a few interesting touches here and there but on the whole it's a pretty forgettable cause except for those who want to see everything the man has done. Of course, one of the biggest reasons for Romero fans to check it out is that Judith Ridley played Judy in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and she's actually not too bad here. She's certainly not going to win any awards for this her second and final film but she's still enjoyable to watch as that laid back approach of hers comes across quite nicely. Laine is also pretty good in the movie as long as they're not trying to get any strong emotions out of him. So, where does the film go wrong? Romero has said that the screenwriter was lazy and pretty much gave up on the picture so the director had to work with what he had. As to why he didn't try to do a re-write is anyone's guess but perhaps the low-budget nature just didn't allow the time. The screenplay isn't horrid but it falls well short of what you'd call good. I think the biggest problem is that he never really tries to explain countless things including why on Earth this woman would be involved with this guy. The two are certainly different types and one might say opposites attract but there's never anything here except this guy treating the woman badly and not doing a single thing good. Just check out the long sequence where he's telling her that her butt is too big for TV and you'll see what I mean. Romero's direction keeps the picture moving well enough and there are a couple good shots (including a nice sex scene) but in the end this is a pretty forgettable movie. The 70s were full of movies about drifters and this one can't come close to best so there's not really any point except for die-hard Romero fans.