Twice Upon a Time (John Korty and Charles Swenson, 1983)

Once upon a time in a dream-factory called Hollywood, a filmmaker named John Korty had a new kind of animation he called “Lumage” He decided to use his process to make a feature-length feel-good fairy tale for the busy, busy people of the real world. John Korty gathered a bunch of very talented people who worked long and hard and lovingly handcrafted the movie “Twice Upon Time”. But when they released their movie into the real world for all those busy people, the people were so busy that no one noticed. The movie disappeared down a black hole.

That's it. Notice the story doesn't have an ending yet. There's no third act. It's Act II that's so frustrating and tantalizing, all these years in limbo in which varying edits keep resurfacing to tease the hopes of its cult followers only to disappear again.

Twice Upon a time concerns three realms and a nefarious scheme. Greensleeves, in the land of sunny Frivoli, writes sweet, peaceful dreams for the nocturnal relief of the harried citizens (Rushers) of the real world (Din). These dreams he disburses with the help of the Figmen of the Imagination. Meanwhile in Murkworks, Synonamess Botch plans to stop time in Din long enough to cover the real world with nightmare bombs. If he can set them all off simultaneously, everyone in Din will be plunged into a worldwide nightmare. To safeguard the plan,  Botch kidnaps Greensleeves and his Figmen..

“It was a time of desperate need for heroes – any kind of heroes.” Any kind of heroes are exactly the kind that step up. Aspiring actress and niece of Greensleeves Flora Fauna sets out to find her uncle with the help of Ralph, a shape-shifting all-purpose animal, and Ralph's Chaplinesque silent partner Mumford. Aid is given along the way by FGM, a Fairy God Mother, Brooklynese in accent and temperament, whose wings flit about independently of her body. Help also comes from Rod Rescueman, a fledgling superhero (“I'm on my learner's permit.”) looking for the obligatory amorous rewards of saving damsels.

Two things set Twice apart, one of them being the look of the movie.. Lumage is a process that involves photographing translucent and opaque cutout material on a light table, resulting in stronger contrasts, richer colors, and unusual textures. Murkworks in particular boasts a complex art design that engages the eyes, very Gothic with its stained glass windows and gargantuan architecture – all contoured mosaics of harsh lines and dark spaces. Compare that to the bright watercolor splashes of Frivoli, where singing happy cows ride swings to the creamery every morning and all news is good news. Din, on the other hand, is animated using layered b&w photographs of real people in a real city. When the nightmare bombs explode they unleash an amazing billowing smoke effect, and I've no idea how that was achieved. They herald an onslaught of homicidal office supplies – dancing scissors , crocodile-jawed staplers and the like.

The other unique thing about Twice is the improvisational nature of the vocal performances. A mostly unknown cast was hired some of them having worked on exec. producer George Lucas' THX-1138. Playing Ralph was Lorenzo Music, best known as the voice of Garfield, Peter Venckman of The Real Ghostbusters, and Rhoda's doorman Carlton. Paul Frees (of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame) has a few small roles as well as providing a brief intro narration. While there was a script, the free-wheeling style of the production in general encouraged the actors to ad lib, resulting in a cartoon that's more in-the-moment than the polished, well-rehearsed works of Disney or Pixar.

The film also looks forward to Shrek with a self-reflexive side, a direct swipe at Hollywood. After Botch tricks our heroes into trusting him, Flora remains in his castle with the promise of entree to acting in film. Seems Botch has his own studio, a veritable “dream factory” where he stages horror films to become the stuff of his bombs. He is the epitome of the Hollywood studio executive and the bane of every artist, at one point throwing out unread the life's work of his own head writer Scuzzbopper. Botch's assistant is a robot with a gorilla body and a TV set for a head, that regurgitates sound bytes for communication.

Ironically, the real life production of this fantasy became a fairy tale itself. It's the story of the two brothers who become enemies.

The films two producers, John Korty and Bill Couterie, had diverging visions of how the film should play. Korty wanted a movie that children could comfortably watch with their parents while Couterie wanted a slightly earthier version. Sources on the 'net differ as to how the two edits came about: some say it was the ad-libbing, others that it was Couteirie's script that contained the profanities. Either way, one wonders where Korty was during all this.

At the time of release, The Ladd Company was going under and made a strategic call: throw the last of their fiances behind The Right Stuff, or support Twice Upon Time. Twice lost. Thus it had a token PR campaign stressing Lucas' involvement and a limited release. When it was finally seen by a wider audience, it was on HBO...but to Korty's dismay it was the Couterie version salted with adult language that Korty had never given approval to. He threatened to sue, and HBO removed the movie after only three airings.

When the film resurfaced later (on Showtime and then on home video), it was Korty's edit. He had expurgated the salty language and also removed a number of scenes. No explanation has been given for the missing sequences. Additionally, every video release has been in the standard ratio format rather than the film's OAR.

In short, there has developed a bitterness between the movie's fans and it's creator, John Korty. The version that fans are wanting, the one that is beloved of them, is the one that repulses Korty. So what we end up with is a standoff which Korty seems to have no interest in resolving. One can hardly blame him for being protective of his baby. Still, it's worse than unfortunate – it's keeping the film itself in a cage undiscovered.

I've wanted to see this movie ever since I was a kid, and now I have thanks to Turner Classic Movies. The version they aired is a compromise between Korty's and Couterie's, with some but not all of the swearing excised and all of the scenes otherwise intact. It's the only edit I've seen, so perhaps I'm unfit to deem it an acceptable compromise...I can say little more than that I found it instantly endearing. You Tube has the more profane opening speech by Botch, and while it's perfectly in keeping with his character I can see why Korty finds it too strong for the overall film. On the other hand, there's another instance of swearing which vitally adds to the film, and harms it by its removal. Botch, having dumped Scuzzbopper's “Great Amurkian Novel” out the window, breaks his head writer's spirit and sets the stage for his own downfall. As Scuzz walks out of view, we hear the heartbroken way he intones “asshole”, and it comes out of the blue (the more so for the excision of most of Botch's earlier profanity, to Korty's credit). It's a necessary character development which the film's finale hinges on and it's also wonderfully funny, especially in it's honesty as attested to by those who first saw it as children – it resonated with them.

I've now had my second chance with this movie – my twice upon a time. It's long since time for Twice to have its own.

Coffin Kids

a novella by Brian Higby and Rick Snyder

I never thought of taffy as creepy before. I do now.

There's a touch of Ray Bradbury in the wind sweeping past that odd little knick-knack shop, through the town and leading right to the front door of the creepy house owned by the old crone. Four children on the cusp of adulthood live here. Rachel, Horatio, twin brothers Henry and Charles. It's Halloween, and children are going missing. Tom, the proprietor of Impossible Dreams, recruits the kids for some holiday mischief that may save all of them.

I had fun with this. Each character is distinct, well drawn and carefully considered, including the minor ones. There's great imagination here (the next time I see a clown I'll be paying attention to the texture of his skin) that kept surprising me (a turn involving a, ahem, full moon got a startled laugh) and I was amused that the Bokar twins, who many adults would call little monsters, become that literally. You might spot influences here and there (there is a Bradbury street, so they're not all hidden) without finding a direct lift anywhere. The prose is terse, which keeps the pace at a comfortable flow – the story moves but is never rushed.

Beginning even before the supernatural elements sweep them into each others' company, the kids are learning to recognize and hone their own judgment. . The story has a strong motif of fallible authority. The kids' parents are neither villains nor heroes. Horatio's are good folk who do what they can, and it's good the story begins with them – they're sympathetic folk who, if they fail their child, its because of their limitations. There's no simplistic demonizing going on here. Rachel's mother is buried under grief and guilt she can't operate beyond. Tom seems a magical replacement: the wise, alluringly mysterious parent we might all wish for, yet he proves to be every bit as unreliable in judgment and for all his cool demeanor (I kept picturing him as Jim Jarmusch, Tom Waits, or maybe a little bit of Tom Baker) shows precious little wisdom. Though the central adult in the story he's still not the final final word as he takes his orders from a veiled group of presumably higher beings, of whom he expresses his own misgivings. Of human authority (ala the police), an aside makes clear he has little use for them.

If I have any criticism about the writing, it's a minor problem with story elements introduced and then dropped undeveloped or forgotten. Tom equips the kids with the modern analog of a trail of breadcrumbs with which to escape a trap but the device is forgotten once the action finale begins. (I was also unclear as to Chuck's position when hauled to the kitchen in the final act – is he in the kettle or chained nearby?) There's also a moment when we learn that the use of magic can become a physical addiction that one of the kids is succumbing to. Nothing comes of it. Addiction is almost a motif with the behavior of some of the parents and with a reference to might be an alcoholic streak in Tom. That probably should either have been expanded on or dropped until the next story...it has potential but I can't see where it fits into this tale, so as it is it's kind of obtrusive.

I very much hope to see this set of characters continue