Fresh Air - The 8 Sci-Fi Movies Of 1982 That Changed Everything

Episode Date: July 31, 2024

In 1982, eight science fiction films were released within eight weeks of each other: E.T., Tron, Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Conan the Barbarian, Blade Runner, Poltergeist, The Thing, and Mad Max: The Road Warrior. Entertainment writer Chris Nashawaty talks to Tonya Mosley about how those movies shaped the genre and the movie industry. His book is The Future Was Now. Also, Ken Tucker reflects on the New York Dolls' album Too Much Too Soon for its 50th anniversary.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for this podcast and the following message come from the NPR Wine Club, which has generated over $1.75 million to support NPR programming. Whether buying a few bottles or joining the club, you can learn more at nprwineclub.org slash podcast. Must be 21 or older to purchase. This is Fresh Air. I'm Tanya Mosley. In the summer of 1982, my guest today, entertainment writer Chris Nashawati, was a 13-year-old burgeoning film geek who spent the entire summer that year in movie theaters watching eight feature films that would go on to change the face of cinema as we know it. Movies like Blade Runner, Conan the Barbarian, Poltergeist, and a sweet movie about an alien trying to find his way back home. E.T. home phone. E.T. phone home.

E.T. phone home. E.T. phone home. He wants to call somebody. What's all this s***? E.T. phone home. My God, he's talking. Home. E.T. phone home.

E.T. phone home? E.T. phone home. And they'll come. Come home. Come home. E.T., the extraterrestrial, is a classic, of course, and was a huge hit when it was released the weekend of July 4th in 1982, making it, at the time, the biggest box office hit in Hollywood history. Some of the other movies that made a splash were Tron, The Thing, Star Trek, Wrath of Khan, and Mad Max, The Road Warrior. Chris Nashawati has written a new book about the significance of that summer called The Future Was Now, Mad Men, Mavericks, and the Epic Sci-Fi Summer of 1982. Up until that point,

Hollywood executives, he says, were baffled by the sci-fi fantasy genre until these movies showed them the potential of tapping into a rabid fan base, eager to spend money on merchandise and endless sequels. Chris Nashawati is a writer, editor, and former film critic of Entertainment Weekly. His work has appeared in Esquire, Sports Illustrated, and Vanity Fair. He is also the author of Caddyshack, the making of a Hollywood Cinderella story. And Chris Nashawati, welcome to Fresh Air. Thank you for having me. I'm very excited.

Yeah, well, you know what is so interesting about this conversation right now is that the movies that are making a splash today are reboots and part two, three, fours, many of the same movies that we're going to be talking about today. It's like the summer of 1982 brought with it both an expansion of our thinking but also kind of created a monster. That is 100 percent the argument of the book. You know, it's interesting that this was – that summer was a real turning point. It was the beginning of Hollywood really catering to fan culture, which is something, you know, right now as we're talking, you know, Comic-Con is still fresh in the news. That's right. Yeah. So, you know, it's interesting that that summer sort of was a reaction to what had gone on

with Star Wars, proving that, you know, there was an audience for a genre that was in many ways dismissed as geeky or kid stuff or whatever. A subculture. Yeah. And the subculture sort of became the culture that summer. So Star Wars, 1977. Jaws, 1975 are two films that they're usually talked about as the birth of the summer blockbusters. We know it.

And it opened up this world of sci-fi and fantasy. How did those two films, though, set the stage for this summer of 1982? Yeah. I mean, I think that Jaws and Star Wars were potent examples of movies that people didn't just pay to see in the summer, but paid to see over and over again. They were movies that appealed to, as you mentioned in the intro, a rabid fan base. And the studios saw how much money that those movies were making and knew that they needed to tap into this audience. They needed to follow that trend, as Hollywood always does. But that takes time.

It's like turning a battleship, right? So after – usually when you want to find out where a trend came from in terms of movies, just look back five years earlier, because that's how long it takes to develop and make a movie and release it. So five years earlier, before 1982 was 1977. Hello, Star Wars. So that's what they're all reacting to in the summer. Okay, let's talk about what films actually came out the summer of 1982. So there was Tron. There was The Thing.

The Thing, Blade Runner, The Road Warrior, Conan the Barbarian, Star Trek, The Wrath of Khan, and what about E.T. Poltergeist. How many of them were original screenplays and how many of them were based on books or comics? Well, I would say, I mean, there are two ways to answer that question. I think of them all as original because they were not based on, like today, the concept of what's original is very different from back then. Some of them were based on books, like, for example, The Thing was based on a science fiction story called Who Goes There? You know, Blade Runner was based on a Philip K. Dick novel called Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? You know, they were all, E.T. was completely original. Road Warrior was completely original.

I mean, it was a mix, really, but none of them were based on what we consider today as, you know, popular intellectual property. You know what I mean? They weren't these huge IP things. They would become those, but they weren't them. And so to me, it's very telling that in one summer you had all of these fresh, bold, original ideas, which is sort of the exact opposite of where we find ourselves right now. Well, this book is a fun read because you give a lot of behind-the-scenes history, and people love hearing those stories about who was thought of to cast for who, and then who

ended up getting the role, and then some of the fights and things like that. But the stories that I love the most are the stories behind the writing of these stories that are enduring stories that we love. Take us back to when Steven Spielberg was conceptualizing E.T. At the time, he was considered the golden boy. He was like the it director in town at the time. Yeah. Yeah, he had just done Jaws, which obviously was a massive hit. And he could really do anything he wanted after that. So he decided to make Close Encounters. And the reason I bring that up is that it's in a way sort of a cousin, a pretty close cousin to this movie, E.T.

You know, you've got this really promising young director dealing in science fiction. And in a way, he sort of legitimized it, right? With him and Lucas sort of legitimized the genre by making really great movies in what was seen as a very populist, maybe low genre. And, you know, with E.T., that was really a story that he had been carrying around for a long time, really since his childhood. He had a very lonely childhood. His parents split up and he never really understood why, only understood much later. And I think he felt like an ugly duckling at school. He was Jewish in an area that wasn't, you know, didn't have a very large Jewish population. I think he felt like a, you know, like an outsider and a lonely outsider. So created, you know, these sort of

pretend friends. And E.T. is really the outgrowth of that story. I mean, it's as great as a science fiction tale as it is. It's also this really sort of touching story about growing up in the suburbs alone. You know, you've got your siblings, but really, like, it's a broken home. It's a broken family. But there's a lot of love there. And it's, you know, he had this story inside of him.

And he's told it a couple of times in various ways, most recently with the Fablemans. But, like, he taps into his own life, which makes the stories especially resonant and personal. He also had a screenwriter who really brought a lot to the project, and that was Melissa Matheson. She had written The Black Stallion, and she was dating Harrison Ford when they were making Raiders of the Lost Ark. And that was the movie that he made right before E.T. And while they were on the set, they met. And he knew that he needed an emotional sort of assist on the script for E.T.

The initial screenplay didn't have some of these. Yeah, it was very different. In what way? It was more of these. Yeah, it was very different. Yeah. In what way? It was more of a horror story, really. I mean, it was about a group of aliens that are left behind. At the time, it was being called Night Skies. And it was a darker story. And, in fact, he actually hired a writer to sort of pursue that.

He hired John Sayles, a great screenwriter, to sort of go down that path. And he wrote that script. And I think by the time he delivered it, Spielberg had had a bit of a change of heart and realized that he wanted it to be a more emotional sort of kinder, gentler story for kids. The way you say it in the book is that what came of that is where that story, Night Skies, ends is where E.T. begins. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. It's a great making of story.

And Spielberg, you know, I'm especially fascinated by him at this period of his career because he is having so much success so quickly. And he's really working at the height of his powers. He has all this energy. He's hopping from one project to the next. He's sort of this unstoppable force of nature. And yet someone did turn down E.T. initially, an executive. Yeah. I mean, that's a great story, too. I mean, he had a deal with Columbia to make E.T. there. And they had signed on for the scarier, darker version, because they wanted this sort of hard science fiction dark story from the director of Jaws, that they could sell, right? And then he told them that he was shifting it in a different direction, you know, into

the softer story. And when they read the script, they just said, this is a wimpy kid's Disney movie. We can't, we don't, we're not interested in this. We're not interested in this. And they basically said, you know, we're going to not make this movie. And they put it in turnaround, which means that another studio, if they paid what Columbia had invested in the property already, they could take the picture. So Spielberg called up his buddy at Universal, Sidney Sheinberg, who had worked with him on Jaws. And he said, look, can you write a check for a million bucks to take this project?

I really want to make this movie. And Columbia's not going to make it. And he was like, yeah, of course. So what's interesting is that Columbia made a huge mistake, obviously, because E.T. became the biggest movie of all time. And they retained 5% of the film's profits. But the funny thing is, and the ironic thing is, is that Columbia, just from their 5%, that made more money for the studio that year than any of their own homegrown movies. So I mean, they really screwed up.

Spielberg also wrote Poltergeist, which is about a young family that's visited by ghosts in their home. And at first the ghosts appear friendly, but then they get more sinister and it turns nasty and they start to terrorize the family before they kidnap the youngest daughter. In this scene I'm about to play, a medium named Tangina, played by Zelda Rubinstein, tells the parents of the little girl that the spirits won't leave their daughter alone. Let's listen. There's one more thing. A terrible presence is in there with her. So much rage. So much betrayal. I've never sensed anything like it

I don't know what hovers over this house but it was strong enough to punch a hole into this world take your dog away from you it keeps Carolian very close to it and away from the spectral light it lies to her I am very close to it and away from the spectral light. It lies to her. It says things only a child can understand.

It has been using her to restrain the others. To her, it simply is another child. To us, it is the beast. That was a scene from the 1982 movie Poltergeist, written by Steven Spielberg, and we'll get to the director situation a little bit later. But Chris, is it true that Poltergeist and E.T. were kind of like two sides of the same coin? They were kind of like an embryo that split into twins. Yeah, okay, that's a better way to put it.

The good and the evil twin. Yeah. Yeah, they both sort of emerged from the same idea. It's interesting. The movie began as a science fiction story about an alien visitation and how the aliens terrorized this family. Yes, exactly. And along the way, it sort of evolved into this story about spirits, the supernatural. And, you know, I think that's probably a good thing.

I don't know that Spielberg would have wanted to have two science fictions movies in the same summer. Well, how did it even come to be that they both came out the same summer? Because I don't think I've ever heard of that before. go to a movie set, shoot a movie, go to bed, repeat the next day. And so for him, making E.T. was obviously a full-time job, but he had this great idea and he wanted to make it now. So, you know, Directors Guild rules prevent someone from directing two movies at the same time. So he signed on to Poltergeist as just the producer. He also co-wrote the script. But so he really had two movies going at the same time. So he signed on to Poltergeist as just the producer. He also co-wrote the script. But so he really had two movies going at the same time. And he hired a director. Is it Toby?

Yeah, Toby Hooper. Yeah. He had directed The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which, you know, anyone who hears the title immediately thinks that that's the most sort of satanic movie that's ever been made. But it's really a work of art. If you're into genre cinema, Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a beautifully made movie. It's been inducted into the Museum of Modern Art. You don't have to. I don't have to sell you on Texas Chainsaw. But it's funny to hear it in that same context.

No, he really, it's a great movie. And I think a lot of movie makers at the time really thought that he was someone to bet on, Tobey Hooper. But there was a bit of a, you know, what would you call it between Tobey Hooper and Steven Spielberg? Because Steven hired him to be the director of Poltergeist. Right. But really he never directed it. Well, that is a question mark. Okay.

There's a lot of speculation about this. Some people who were involved with the making of the movie feel that Spielberg was on the set every day but three days of the making of Poltergeist even though he was just a producer. There are a lot of people who say that he really took over the directing of the film from Tobey Hooper. Maybe Tobey Hooper wasn't up to directing such a big major studio movie or that he didn't have a forceful enough personality to sort of make the movie the way it should be made. Other people say that, no, Tobey Hooper did direct it. It seems to me after the people I've spoken to and what I've read and that all facts sort of come down on the side of Steven Spielberg was a very hands-on producer and Steven Spielberg did not help himself out by making some statements during the time of the film's release, implying that

he was a much larger role in directing the film than he may or may not have. He wanted credit for it. He did. And I think that's what it boils down to, is that that was a story that really came from him. And I think he had a hard time giving up credit. Because he said about Poltergeist, he says, Poltergeist is what I fear, and E.T. is what I love.

One is about suburban evil, and the other is about suburban good. And both of these stories live in my heart. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's exactly it. And I think, you know, they are two sides of him. One is the Mary Prankster who used to like, you know, scare the wits out of his sister. And the other one is someone who's interested in making heartwarming, you know, entertainment for kids because deep down he is a kid.

And, you know, I think that Poltergeist or the sort of scandal that erupted from it over this people, two different people taking sort of credit as the director, was really the first public black eye that he had ever gotten. His career had been charmed up to that point, and it's been charmed ever since. But there was this brief hiccup, right, where he had a bit of a public relations nightmare on his hands. About these movies, did he ever share with you the impact of that year, or those movies in particular, about his career and artistic choices from that point on? Yeah. I mean, I think he told me that E.T. is one of his most personal and favorite movies. And he also mentioned the fact that working with the kids was really

the highlight, including a very young Drew Barrymore. That's right. And it really, he had been sort of a loner, single guy for a lot of his life. And making this movie with these kids every day really sort of made him want to be a dad, which he's done several times over since then. Our guest today is author Chris Nashawati. We're talking about his new book, The Future Was Now, Mad Men, Mavericks, and the Epic Sci-Fi Summer of 1982. We'll be right back after a short break. I'm Tanya Mosley, and this is Fresh Air. This message comes from WISE, the app for doing things in other currencies.

Send, spend, or receive money internationally, and always get the real-time mid-market exchange rate with no hidden fees. Download the WISE app today or visit WISE.com. T's and C's apply. There's also the emerging technology that I'm really fascinated by because when we think about the sci-fi and fantasy genre, so much of the visual is really dependent on the ability to articulate visually all that's happening. Tron is a really interesting story that you write about. But there was this movie in 1979 called The Black Hole. So it was Disney's stab at sci-fi to try to get at the Star Wars magic.

And it was a dud, right? Yeah, it was a dud. Artistically, it was certainly a dud. Commercially, I think it probably broke even. But it certainly wasn't the result that Disney was looking for, without a doubt. You know, it's funny because Lucas and Spielberg reportedly brought, I mean, Lucas rather brought Star Wars to Disney. Yeah. You know, when he was trying to find someone to bankroll it. And they passed. They passed.

You know? But you know. They got it later. They got it later. Eventually. Right, today. Overpaid. But it's funny know. They got it later. They got it later. Eventually. Right, today. Overpaid. But it's funny because.

He got the last laugh there. Yeah, they did. But Disney at the time, you know, we think of Disney as sort of like this monolithic movie studio now that's sort of like the alpha dog among all of them. But back in 1982, this was a studio that was really on its last legs. It was, you know. And what was it holding on to? Because you talk about the executives at that time period. They were really of another generation.

They were. And they were all sort of still living in Walt Disney's shadow. You know, he had died in 1966 after presiding over, you know, the biggest animation powerhouse in the history of movies. You know, Disney was just the greatest studio that you could imagine in the 40s and 50s. And but by, you know, the 70s, it was just a place where they were re-releasing old movies like, oh, you want to watch Snow White again? Here it is. Bambi.

Yeah, Bambi, for example, which I know you saw in the summer of 1982. That was actually a movie that was out during that year. That's right. They put out a lot. They re-released a lot of those golden age movies. But in terms of like fresh ideas, this was not the place to go. And agents knew that. It's not like they were going to go to Disney to get a good deal. Disney was notoriously cheap and they weren't making good movies. And so they knew, because of Star Wars, that this was their chance to get into the major studio sandbox and try to make some money. And they had this property, the Black Hole, and they rolled the dice on it and paid a lot of money to make it. And it just didn't do that well. Well, a couple of years later,

then there's Tron, which is about a computer hacker who is abducted into the digital world. What did Disney learn from the black hole that then maybe helped them with the success of Tron? Yeah, I mean, I think it learned that it has to gamble in order to stay alive. And yes, black hole had been sort of an unsuccessful gamble, or at least a push. But they knew that this is the way they had to go in order to stay relevant and to stay in business. And so when it was time for Tron to happen, they didn't fully get the ideas that the director of Tron, Steven Lisberger, had in mind for this movie because it was made in a radically new process, which is called backlit animation, which makes the images look like they're backlit by neon.

It was trying to look like video games. It was, yeah. And in a way, it was perfectly timed because if you were a kid at that age, at that time, video games were – They were it. I mean we used to go to the arcade with a roll of quarters and just spend the day playing Defender or Centipede. It was a glorious time and they tried to cash in on that with this radical idea, which – with an almost experimental movie. And, you know, in a way it was too ahead of its time. It was too perfectly timed because that audience would eventually be there. People would eventually go to see these movies about video games.

But not – they weren't ready yet. They weren't ready yet. They weren't ready yet. They weren't ready yet. So Tron was not as successful as, yeah. It was a break-even movie. It was a break, wait, is it true that Disney used so much power, it caused a brownout in the city of Burbank to film this movie? That's right.

They had to, the way they had to light a soundstage in order to make this digital process work required a huge amount of lighting, so much so that in Los Angeles, the precincts that they're in, there was a brownout and the power company had to go to Disney and be like, you got to cool it. If you're just joining us, my guest is writer Chris Nashawati. We're talking about his new book, The Future Was Now, Mad Men, Mavericks, and the Epic Sci-Fi Summer of 1982. The book chronicles an eight-week period in movie history when eight science fiction and fantasy films were released

within eight weeks of each other. It charts how these films helped set the stage for high-concept films with a rabbit fan base, merchandising potential, and sequels. We'll continue our conversation after a short break. This is Fresh Air. You know, I'm thinking about this time period of 1982 in the context of today, and there's so many remakes and reboots, and we're used to them coming and going, and some of them are really good and reboots and we're used to them coming and going and some of them are really good and some of them are not.

You write about Star Trek and the attempt to remake a movie that was made a few years before 1982. So Star Trek, as we know, was a show and then a movie was made in the late 70s. It was horrible, right? It wasn't that good. I think it's horrible, yeah. People did was a show, and then a movie was made in the late 70s. It was horrible, right? It wasn't that good. I think it's horrible, yeah. People did not like it, yes. And then studios decided, though, that it still deserved another chance at a movie. And so there we had

Wrath of Khan, which was a success. So much so that 40 years later, I mean, the franchise is still a success. Yeah. What happened during that time period to really actually save it? Yeah, we really probably still wouldn't be talking about Star Trek if it wasn't for The Wrath of Khan, the second movie made because Paramount had the sort of rights to this franchise because of the TV show. And they had been playing the show with William Shatner from the 60s in syndication. And it was doing really well. People loved it. It had this cult following and people really liked it.

So they knew that this was a real potential goldmine that they had. Why not turn it into a movie? So they did in 1979 with Star Trek, the motion picture, and it's terrible. It's got really great special effects, which were cutting edge for the time. Now look a little cheesy, but the movie is just not good. It's long. It doesn't have any of the things that we want to see in a Star Trek movie

especially after that long hiatus from the TV show. You want to check back in with the people that you love. Spock, Sulu, all these you really want to see the interplay between them and it's just this excuse for a lot of expensive special effects and the story's lousy. And so the movie, it did OK. It actually made money, the first one, because, you know, the merchandising and all of that. And people were curious. But no one liked the movie. Even Star Trek fans did not like the movie. Critics certainly didn't like the movie.

What made them want to do it again? They tried again with Rath and Khan. Because they made money on it. Yeah. And they saw the potential. They didn't want, like anyone else, they didn't want to leave money on the table. They thought there might still be some life in it. But if they did a second one, it was going to have to be made differently. I mean, the first one went way over budget. And it just, there was no real quality control on it. So I think they felt that they should do a sequel, it should be made less expensively. So there was less exposure, and they needed to have more quality control on it. And so that's what they set out to do. Now, the problem was, is that Leonard Nimoy,

Spock, probably the most iconic character, you know, maybe along with Kirk in the whole show, and the whole franchise, Nimoy did not want to come back. He hated the first movie, he had sort of a love-hate relationship with the character, even though it was the most iconic thing he'd ever done. It was something that he didn't like being. He felt like an albatross. And you can't have a movie without him. You can't. I don't see how. Yeah. And so they had to really woo him to get him involved.

You know, but it was really one sort of nightmare after another on the making of this movie. And it just feels to me like a terrific story, especially if you're a Star Trek fan, which I am. I think that this movie delivers everything you want from a Star Trek movie. It's got a great villain in Khan, played by Ricardo Montalban. It's got the effects don't overwhelm the movie, but they're very good. The story is terrific. It's about grappling with age and mortality, something that all the actors were doing. And it sounds like all of the actors and everyone involved were really, they were really motivated to make sure that this one was good. Yeah.

Because they had already experienced that really it was traumatic for them to do it the other time. It's the thing that they're identified with. And to put out a lackluster version of it after 15 years away from the TV show, it really stung. So they wanted to get a do-over. And that's what they got with Wrath of Khan. Members of the cast that year, that that summer then went on to go to comic-con right yeah and i i think this is so fascinating when we talk about um just the fandom that then grew and built from this time period that we know today so comic-con was just over a decade old right during that time period. So much money is put into fandom and merchandising and other types of things. And in reading your book, I just wondered if the success of 1982 was more about teaching Hollywood executives how to cash in versus the art of it. We did have art that came out of it.

But what is your takeaway? You stopped short of bringing down like the lessons learned from that time period. Yeah. I mean, I'd like for people to maybe draw, maybe that's laziness, but I do, I like people to draw their own lessons from what happened. My big takeaway from this is that, you know, it was about cashing in, but at the same time, the reason I like this story is because it really parallels what's going on with Hollywood right now, okay? You've got the studios under threat, okay? Now, right now, the studios are under threat from the streamers and a lack of theatrical attendance after COVID. It never really picked back up entirely.

There are still movies that are doing well, but as a whole, the industry is sort of soft right now. And the studios are freaking out. And the same thing was going on in 1982. There was obviously change af foot because of Star Wars and they all needed to get into that game of making event movies and they didn't know how to do it. Or if they did do it, those movies were so expensive that they really needed them to hit. Now, I feel like in 1982, the studios were really creative and took gambles to get out of the hole they were in. Okay? They made movies like the ones that are covered in this book, which regardless of whether

or not you like them, you know, I obviously love them, but regardless of whether or not you like them, they are ambitious. They make statements. They're well-made. They're original. And right now, I feel like that's the exact opposite of what's happening in Hollywood. I feel like the studios are sort of curling into a fetal ball and hoping that the world, like all of these problems just disappear and blow past like a tornado and that they won't get too devastated during the tornado.

And I just don't think that's the right way to take the moment of opportunity. Right. And also, though, the one difference is they had Star Wars as a proof of concept and Jaws as a proof of concept. But what is the proof of concept today to say, here's the thing that you should take the leap on? Well, I think that it's streaming. And I think that, you know, a lot of, there are a lot of big studios and giant companies that are betting on streaming and are going to fail. I think that they think that the Netflix model will work for all of them and that there will be room for all of them at the table. And there won't.

There's just no way that the environment can nurture and sustain seven or eight different streaming services. People are not going to pay an invisible $10 a month for eight different services forever. So we'll see a constriction. I think so, yeah. Will that make our choices better? I doubt it. It never does. Monopolies never make your choices better.

I think that, I mean, I don't want to get too gloom and doom about it, but I do think that the studios are going to have to get smarter and more creative and riskier about getting out of this situation that they're in. They need to make better movies, and they need to get people to come to the theater. And it's not by making sequels and prequels and sidequels

and whatever. It's just not. It's got to be something new. It's got to be an Oppenheimer or a Barbie. And those need to come out more frequently in order for a rebound. movie studios being run by people who weren't in different businesses. You know what I mean? They weren't cogs in a conglomerate. They were being run by people who loved movies. Not all of them, but I mean, you get my point. Like there was more... Less of a business. It felt like less of a business and more of an art. Well, this was really fun going down memory lane and also learning all of this background

information that we didn't know about these movies that are enduring movies that still stand the test of time. Chris Nashawati, thank you so much. Thank you for having me. Chris Nashawati is a writer, editor, and former film critic for Entertainment Weekly. His new book is called The Future Was Now, Mad Men, Mavericks, and the Epic Sci-Fi Summer of 1982. Coming up, rock critic Ken Tucker continues his series of albums, celebrating their 50th anniversary this year with In Too Much Too Soon from the New York Dolls. This is Fresh Air. This is Fresh Air, and as part of the summer series on albums celebrating their 50th anniversary,

rock critic Ken Tucker is reviewing the New York Dolls' 1974 record, In Too Much Too Soon. It was the second album by the band fronted by lead singer David Johansson. The New York Dolls are now considered to be one of the forerunners of punk rock, but as Ken explains,, boys, I was gone My girlfriend asked me, where do I come from? Put my face up in the mirror, just to clock my way First thing I know, I gotta get out of here I'm back to fair alone

I gotta get away to fair alone I can't stay, cause it's fair alone Back to Babylon. I gotta get away to Babylon. I can't stay cause it's Babylon. And it's too much fun. To the Babylon. I gotta run. I can't look back. I've gotta get back.

I've gotta get down to Babylon. Of all the albums I've talked about during this 50th anniversary album series thus far, the New York Doll's In Too Much Too Soon is the least known and least appreciated. I know this partly from experience. The vinyl copy of it that I possess was given to me 50 years ago by my friend, the novelist Tom DeHaven. Not as a gift, but as something he wanted out of his house. Take it, he told me, holding it at arm's length. I hate it, he said. At the time, this second album by the Dolls was receiving rapturous reviews, minimal sales, and audience indifference bordering on hostility. The album

thrilled me, and I still grin upon hearing the opening goofiness of the Dolls' version of Archie Bell and the Drells' There's Gonna Be a Showdown. Say man, they tell me you're pretty good. Don't you know you're in my neighborhood? They tell me you're pretty fast on them beats. You best be in the dam down on 14th Street. You hear? Yeah, it's gonna be a showdown. Yeah, it's gonna be a showdown. Yeah, it's gonna be a showdown Yeah, yeah, yeah

It's gonna be a showdown It's not hard to hear why many people did not dig the New York Dolls. To begin with, there's David Johansson's taxi cab honk of a voice, as New York as the band's name. While he later went solo as a witty crooner under the stage name Buster Poindexter, as a doll, Johansson was all about singing to compete with or complement the clattering chaos of Johnny Thunder's garish lead guitar. Get your boots, dress like pussy boots I hope you don't get shot for trying So baby, shot for trying In New York City, the Dolls were the bridge

between the atonal moodiness of the Velvet Underground that preceded them and the terse noise of the Ramones who would follow them. Arrogant, sloppy, and plagued by substance abuse, the band was a slap in the face, no one's idea of a smash hit, at a time when John Denver and the Eagles topped the charts. Paul Nelson, the pioneering rock critic turned A&R man, had to spend months convincing his bosses at Mercury Records to sign the band. Ellen Willis, another inventor of rock criticism, wrote in The New Yorker about being blown away by the band in the lower Manhattan space that became their launch pad, the Mercer Arts Center,

describing Johansson as a, quote, 19-year-old bizarro in his rumpled Prince Valiant hairstyle, lipstick, high-heeled boots and leather pants, radiating a sulky sexuality. The high point of this album is its final song, Human Being. It's poignant that the Dolls would feel they had to tell us that they weren't freaks or superheroes, but plain old humans,

wrapping the sentiment in their fiercest rock music. Oh yeah I make big that this whole scene is humans, wrapping the sentiment in their fiercest rock music. I'll make it just what I want it to be. While I'm blowing my chains on the fan magazines with all the Hollywood refugees screaming, yeah, yeah. Oh, yeah. And if I'm acting like a king, I said, well, I'm a human being. If I want to meditate, don't you know well I'm a human being If I've got to drink Baby, baby, baby I'm a human being

When it gets up in the day I'm a human being The Dolls' first self-titled album had been produced by Todd Rundgren in hopes of giving it some pop music flair. For the second album, the band made a surprising choice. Shadow Morton, best known for his work writing and producing 60s hits like Leader of the Pack for the Shangri-Las. He turned out to be great for the group, playing up their hard rock swagger

while also highlighting the sense of humor that could get lost in the noise, steering them toward material like Sonny Boy Williamson's 1950s blues hit, Don't Start Me Talking. Less than a year after this album, the Dolls broke up in a combination of commercial failure and personal misbehavior. The best summation may have been offered by the late Paul Nelson when asked why he worked so hard to get the Dolls a record contract. It was a wondrous thing, he said, to see a group play rock and roll with the enthusiasm of five people who felt and acted as if they had just invented it. Rock critic Ken Tucker revisited the 1974 album In Too Much Too, by the New York Dolls. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, Brittany Howard.

She became known as the powerhouse singer and guitarist fronting the band Alabama Shakes. Now she has a solo career and a new album called What Now? We'll talk with her about her new album, writing and singing breakup songs, and how her life has changed. I hope you'll join us. One, two, three, four. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Sam Brigger, Lauren Krenzel, Anne-Marie Baldonado, Teresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Bea Chaloner, Susan Ngakundi, and Joel Wolfram. With Terry Gross, I'm Tanya Mosley. This message comes from NPR sponsor Grammarly. What if everyone at work were an expert communicator?

Inbox numbers would drop, customer satisfaction scores would rise, and everyone would be more productive. That's what happens when you give Grammarly to your entire team. Grammarly is a secure AI writing partner that understands your business and can transform it through better communication. Join 70,000 teams who trust Grammarly is a secure AI writing partner that understands your business and can transform it through better communication. Join 70,000 teams who trust Grammarly with their words and their data. Learn more at Grammarly.com. Grammarly. Easier said, done. Support for NPR and the following message come from the Kauffman Foundation, providing access to opportunities that help people achieve financial stability,

upward mobility, and economic prosperity, regardless of race, gender, or geography. Kauffman.org.