Trapped by the Mormons - 1922

Mormon missionaries standing in front of poster advertising the movie.  In spite of the hostile message of the film, Mormons took advantage of the publicity by distributing their pamphlets to patrons in line or exiting the theater.

 

Director:                 H.B. Parkinson

Written by:              Frank Miller

       Based on the novel The Love Story of a Mormon,

           by Winifred Graham

Cast                        

Nora Prescott                   Evelyn Brent

Isoldi Keene                    Louis Willoughby

Mr. Prescott                     Cecil Morton York

Mrs. Prescott                 (I have been unable to find this

                                         actress’s name.  Anyone know?)

Jim                                   George Wynn

Sadie                                Olive Sloan

Elder Kayler                    Ward McCallister

Elder Marz                       Olaf Hytten 

-->

Let me make this very clear: This movie sucks.  I’m giving it one kiss, not for any technical or artistic merit, but simply for its value as an historical curiosity. 

-->

Since Mormons have been so much in the news of late, (Yes I’m talking to you Mitt, and to you Matt Stone and Trey Parker.) it seems timely to review a Mormon themed film.  And the very unlikely film I will be talking about is titled “Trapped by the Mormons”.  It is a silent movie made in England in 1922 and it is pure anti-Mormon propaganda, ‘Mormonsploitation’, one of many such movies made in the early days of cinema.

In the first three decades of the twentieth century there were a number of novels written and films made about the imagined Mormon peril.  One of the first well known print examples is the unflattering portrait of Mormons in the Sherlock Holmes story, A Study in Scarlet by Arthur Conan Doyle.  Other early film titles include, “A Trip to Salt Lake City”, Thomas Edison, 1905; “A Victim of the Mormons”, 1911; and “A Mormon Maid”, 1917.

Our film is based on a 1911 novel, The Love Story of a Mormon written by Winifred Graham, aka Mrs. Theodore Cory.  One of Graham’s reasons for living seems to have been to lead a crusade against the so-called insidious threat posed to civilized Christians by the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS).  Her novel describes the evil plot of a Mormon missionary to lure innocent young English girls to a polygamous/white slavery fate worse than death in Utah.  The movie follows the plot of the novel very closely, with the exception of changing the names of all the characters.  In 1922 she wrote another anti-Mormon opus entitled Sealed Women.

So, hang on to your magic underwear….here we go!

The opening shot of the movie is a close up of the Mormon missionary, Isoldi Keene.  He is introduced in the title card as having “mesmeric powers” which make him “one of the cleverest recruiters in the Mormon ranks.”  To drive that point home, he moves in to the camera for a very, very, close close-up.  Just in case we forget, several times during the film the camera iris narrows to focus on his eyes and their mesmeric powers.  You may want to be careful, don't look into his eyes too long, since he does have those mesmeric powers.  And you wouldn't want to fall under his spell too quickly, only one minute into this review.

 

……………… Oh my god, what happened?  I must have blacked out for a while. 

Next we meet our heroine, Nora Prescott.  Isoldi has set his sights on capturing the innocent young Manchester girl for his church, and has set his cap at making her the latest Mrs. Keene.  She is described as a “flower ripe for plucking.” 

-->We are told that for several days he has placed himself outside of Nora’s home so they can establish a “nodding acquaintance” as she passes by on her way to work.  Finally he speaks to her and gives her the good news of divine salvation.  In order to make his point more clear, he mesmerizes poor little Nora with those darn powerful eyes of his.  We know for sure that Nora is starting to fall for the missionary’s position because she stares at him blankly and then blinks her eyes a few times before agreeing to see him again.  But just in case we still missed it, we are told that Nora sees him as a “wonderful vision of all-conquering manhood.”  Yowza!

 "Hello, have you heard about my position?"

-->(Maybe this was the inspiration for that book advertised in the back of men’s magazines, “How to Get Girls Through Hypnosis”)

-->

When Nora returns home, her father notices the pamphlet which Isoldi had given her.  We are informed that Nora then tells “her first lie!” when she tells Dad that she found it on the street.  Oh, the road to hell is paved with sex, lies and litter!  But dear old Dad seems to have some instinctive knowledge that she is in danger and warns her about consorting with those devilish Mormons. 

But that mesmeric power is irrisistable!  Nora meets Isoldi again and gets hit with the whammy one more time.  After a flowery description of the heavenly delights of Utah which await her, Isoldi bestows on Nora the “kiss of a saint.”  He then asks her if she has any friends…  GIRL friends…and wouldn’t they be interested in hearing the good news also?  Nora tells her friends at work that she has met “an angel” and takes them to meet the mesmeric missionary.

-->By sheer coincidence, they meet Isoldi in a park where a caravan is stopped.  He tells the ladies that within is a woman who has just died; at the bedside are her grieving husband and the doctor who has been unable to save her.  Isoldi enters the wagon and…a miracle!... raises the woman from the dead.

 

-->

That has done the trick!  The girls need no more proof that Mormons operate with the clout of the Almighty.  After the girls leave, Isoldi enters the wagon again, and has a celebratory drink with his co-conspirators after complimenting them on their acting skills and paying them off.  The woman laughingly tells Isoldi that she was a little worried that he would not bring her out of her trance.  Yeah, I hate it when that happens!

Nora knows all she needs to know.  She asks her father to tell her boyfriend Jim that their engagement is off.  When her “paralytic” father has an attack, Nora goes to Isoldi to beg him to come home and cure her father.  With a little fast thinking Isoldi tells her that he can’t do that because her father is an infidel and he may not touch him.  Then, demonstrating enough gall to be divided into three parts, he tells her that she is sinning by even asking him to do such a thing.  Really, this guy is good!  If he ever wanted to leave the church he could have a future selling ice to Eskimos.  He then plants another sacred smooch on Nora and tells her it is time for him to “steal her away” from her unworthy family. 

 "The kiss of a saint"???   Wow!!!    Let me see one of those pamphlets.....

-->

Isoldi sends his “sister” Sadie with Nora to pose as an authoress in need of a secretary for a research trip to Holland.  Nora has been accepted for the position, and Sadie comes to her home to meet the folks and put their minds to rest that Nora will be in safe hands.  Father Prescott tells his wife that all will be well because, “Holland doesn’t allow MORMONS!”  Nora accompanies Sadie to Isoldi’s home in London.  Meanwhile, boyfriend Jim smells a rat and hires a detective to follow Nora.  The two of them set up camp across the street from the house in London to keep an eye on Jim's ex-fiancée. 

While Nora gets settled in her new digs, Isoldi and the other Elders slide down to the basement for a baptism ceremony.  Three young women enter what looks like a Roman bathhouse, kneel for a blessing and then one by one enter the large baptismal font for the immersion.  They are of course wearing flimsy white dresses.  That’s right…anything to get the women wet in a movie!  I’m sure that this scene was included for its dramatic and aesthetic value.  As a matter of fact, it’s only slightly more dignified than, and of as much value as, a Ft. Lauderdale wet t-shirt contest. 

-->That evening, Isoldi takes Nora to a fancy restaurant, “an unlikely place to find a saint” according to the title card.  There is much drinking, dancing, cavorting, wild jazz music and general carrying on at this place.  Nora is contacted by the detective who gives her a handkerchief to hang outside of her window if she needs any help.  He tells her that he and Jim will be watching for the signal.

-->Back at the house, Sadie confesses to Nora that she is not Isoldi’s sister but is in fact his first wife!  Her jealousy of Nora and guilt about her part in the deception now make her want to help Nora escape.  Nora’s eyes have been opened, but too late!  Isoldi and his fellow evil Mormons tie up Sadie and lock Nora in another room.  It is decided that Sadie must die for her betrayal, which is ok with Isoldi but he wants to keep Nora.  However the two really evil guys plan to murder poor Nora by turning on the gas while she is unconscious.  Why they didn’t think of tying her to a board in a sawmill or to a railroad track is anybody’s guess. 

"NO!!!  I said I don't WANT to look at your literature!!!!"

-->But since this is a melodrama, and one with a message no less, I’m not spoiling anything by telling you that Nora finds a way to signal Jim and the detective, the good guys arrive just in time to save her and hand Isoldi and his pals over to the police.  The movie ends with Nora and Jim embracing and sharing a pure, wholesome Christian kiss.

-->

Where to start with this movie?  I want to say right away that the copy I watched was on VHS and the film was grainy and dark with no musical track whatsoever.  But no worries -- no amount of poor film transfer quality can hide artistic incompetence from my eyes.  To begin with, it was very poorly and cheaply made.  I’m sure that the idea was to get this thing produced and into theaters quickly to make a buck (or rather, a pound).  It is exploitation at its meanest.  For more discussion of exploitation films see my review of the very slimy, very icky, “Maniac".

Grapevine Video has released the film on DVD and it sounds like it is a very nice transfer which may be worth checking out.  That collection includes a new organ soundtrack, and a commentary by Brigham Young University historian James V. D’Arc, as well as the text of the original 1911 novel.

-->

The acting varies between inadequate and wildly over the top.  In general it is a good example of the kind of thing most people think of when they hear the words “silent movie”;  overly broad gestures, and exaggerated facial expressions.  However, silent movies don’t have to fit that stereotype.  I recently saw the 1922 Swedish film, “Phantom Carriage”.  The actors perform with subtlety and restraint, giving the movie an amazingly contemporary feel.  Watching that film becomes a very real and moving experience.  I’ll get to that review soon.

Evelyn Brent as Nora has two expressions -- a wide eyed innocent caught-in-the-headlights look and a scared look -- but it’s hard to tell the difference between the two.  Louis Willoughby as Isoldi has two basic looks as well – wide staring eyes for the mesmeric power trick and a sly shifty eyed look to let us know that he is evil.  It’s too bad he doesn’t have a moustache, I’m sure he would have been terrific at twirling the ends of it. 

Cecil Morton York as Mr. Prescott frowns energetically.  In one scene a perfectly innocent Mormon missionary knocks on the door.  Papa Prescott throws a fit which propels him out of his wheelchair with such force that one can actually be concerned for the actor’s safety.  However, Mrs. Prescott manages to find the silver lining, comforting her husband with the observation that he is now able to move.

-->

By the way, the title cards are so dark and hard to read...let me help.  Mrs. Prescott said:  "There's...there's a MORMON!"  Then in the middle of his attack, Mr. Prescott yells at the missionary:  "My daughter!  Where is she?  Curse you!  Where is she?"  

Another thing I love about the title cards -- the words 'Mormon' or 'Mormons' are always in caps.  "MORMONS"!!  It always feels as if someone is screaming the words at the top of their lungs.  There is absolutely nothing subtle about this movie.   

The director, H.B. Parkinson helmed two other films which are considered lost:  “The Law Divine”, 1920; and “Married to a Mormon”, 1922.  Both movies also starred Evelyn Brent.  I know little else about either of these films, but the mind boggles.  One thing I do know is that English actor Clive Brook co-starred in “Married to a Mormon”.  I’ve always kind of liked him.  He played veddy, veddy British characters.  I especially liked him as Marlene Dietrich’s love interest in "Shanghai Express".  He also starred in “Cavalcade” which for some inexplicable reason won the Academy Award for Best Picture of 1933.  I saw that one many years ago and thought it a tremendous bore, but maybe I need to revisit it and give it another try.  Or maybe not.  There are still a whole lotta zombie movies I haven’t gotten to.  Life is short after all.  Anyhoo…

When I found this film I had to laugh at the ludicrous premise.  It is childishly sincere in its effort to be a serious drama and is an insult to any person with the slightest intelligence.  But let’s face it, sex sells – whether you are advertising beer or spreading intolerance.  The main attraction of the anti-Mormon circus has been, and still is, polygamy, even though the practice was officially outlawed by the church in 1904.  This story of a dangerous threat to white Christian womanhood is not only beyond belief (not to mention good taste), but has to be seen for the ridiculous bigot’s wet dream that it is.  At least “Birth of a Nation” with a similar sub-plot of racist nonsense can be appreciated for D.W. Griffith’s ground-breaking cinematic style.  But “Trapped by the Mormons” cannot be appreciated for anything other than being a piece of tripe.  Historical tripe, but tripe nevertheless. 

This has been an education for me.  I had precious little knowledge about the persecution of the Mormon church before this.  The history of the LDS is full of violence:  the murder of Mormon leader Joseph Smith by a mob while he was under arrest, attacks on Mormon communities by lawless militia, being driven out of Illinois, and expelled from Missouri under an Order of Extermination signed by the governor.  In 1857 President James Buchanan ordered one third of the US army to Utah, referred to as “The Utah War”, in order to deal with encroaching Mormon political power.  Like so many other groups, Mormons have been feared as “Other” for several reasons; political, social, economic, and religious.   

I’m not making any judgment about the religion itself one way or another and I’m not going to argue about any tenets of the faith.  But it is disturbing to learn about another chapter in the long history of religious intolerance that we humans have inflicted upon each other.  And it goes on and on.  I have the depressing feeling that “Trapped by The Mormons” possibly could be re-made today as a serious film, using basically the same script, but with modern techniques, and would be accepted by many people as practically a documentary. 

As a matter of fact it has been re-made.  In 2005 Cherry Red Productions released a DVD of their tongue-in-cheek silent version of this story under the same title.  It is heightened with hysterically campy touches, such as Mormons as very literal blood sucking vampires and flesh eating zombies.

The character of Isoldi Keene is played by drag king, Johnny Kat. 

  It has received many positive reviews, which only goes to show that good taste, as well as bad, is timeless.  The LDS seems to have reacted to this release with some good humor.  Church spokeswoman Kim Farah has said,

“With something like this, it is over the top and we don’t take it seriously.  Nobody can possibly take this seriously.”  **

** quoted by Jonathan Padget for the Washington Post, obtained by me from “The Mormon as Vampire:  A Comparative Study of Winifred Graham’s The Love Story of a Mormon, the Film ‘Trapped by the Mormons’, and Bram Stoker’s Dracula”  by James V. D’Arc.


-->

Well, it’s time for me to lighten up a bit.  I’m making plans to go see the musical “The Book of Mormon” when it arrives in Chicago late this year.  Then I’m sure that I’ll get the real low down on what’s what with our Mormon brethren.  Hasa Diga Eebowai, everybody!

Have a comment about this post?  Please, be my guest.  Indulge yourself below.  I would love to hear from you.  Thanks!  

 

 

Maniac - 1934

-->

Director:                 Dwain Esper
Writer:                     Hildegarde Stadie
Asst.Director:        J.Stuart Blackton, Jr.
Photographer:       William Thompson
Editor:                    William Austin


Cast
Don Maxwell             Bill Woods
Dr. Meirschultz          Horace Carpenter
Buckley                      Ted Edwards
Mrs. Buckley             Phyllis Diller  (no, not the comedienne)
Alice Maxwell            Theo Ramsey
Maizie                       Jenny Dark
Marvel                        Marvel Andre
Jo                               Celia McCann
Embalmer                 J.P. Wade


no kisses!

This might possibly be the weirdest movie I’ve ever seen, not to mention one of the worst.  And that’s saying something.  I can appreciate a poorly made film that is entertaining in spite of itself, especially if it feels as if some sincere effort to make a good movie was behind it.  But not “Maniac”; from the first shot of the title it has the scent of incompetence.  Additionally, it is so distasteful, so perverse, so joyless, so skin-crawlingly creepy in a sick way that I just can’t give it any credit for entertainment.  Throw in exploitative misogyny and misanthropy with a misconceived mise en scene, and you have a bad movie.  Not to mention a lot of words that start with ‘mis’. 

The acting is laughable.  The direction and editing stink (let’s not mince words here).  The continuity is non-existent.  The sound and photography are poor and not synched properly.   The story is ridiculous and the script is so absurd and filled with non sequiturs that it’s hard to believe it was written by a human.  The only good thing you can say about the dialogue is that between the mush-mouthed actors and the bad recording it's hard to hear.  Production values must have been considered mythological, sort of like unicorns.  (Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?)

“Maniac” uses the unique device of intertitle cards with simple and usually incorrect meanings of psycho-medical terms such as ‘paranoia’ or “dementia”.  This is supposed to fill us in on the medical explanation of the psychopathy we are witnessing on screen, as if we are watching a dramatic recreation of a case history.   For example:

These cards are shown over sentimental music which starts and stops abruptly and would be more suitable for a scene of kittens playing with a ball of wool than discussions of violent abnormal psychology.

I will now indulge myself while trying your patience at the same time. The use of that same limp device in this review will surely help you in understanding the abnormal cinematic-pathology I am describing.  Sorry, no music.

                Exploitation - treatment of someone, or the use of a situation in a way

                 that is wrong, in order to get some benefit for oneself.  Or, the process

                of making use of something so that you gain as much as possible

                from it.

                Macmillan Dictionary, 2009

“Maniac”, made by the husband and wife team of Dwain Esper and Hildegarde Stadie, is one of the little known but classic exploitation movies of the 1930’s, a decade rife with exploitation.  You might say it was a golden age – if such a phrase is appropriate to describe such a phenomenon.  It can be mentioned in the same breath as beauties such as “Child Bride” “Marijuana”, “Delinquent Daughters”, “The Road to Ruin”, “Mad Youth”, and probably the best known of this ilk, “Reefer Madness”.

All of these movies were made behind the front of being “educational”.  This misnomer is the mother of all phony-baloney covers.  It was merely an excuse to pander to the lowest common denominator which exists in us all, whether we like to admit it or not.  It was an excuse to show the audience wild parties, marijuana use, drinking, nudity, sex, young innocent girls in the throws of abandoning their morals, and boys more than willing to help them out with that, not to mention the satisfying sight of the morning after hangovers and regrets.

Exploitation films – films made with little or no attention to quality

 or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure

sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect

 of the product.

The Film Encyclopedia, by Ephraim Katz.  1979.

We are shown the depths to which young people are dragged by the above vices.  Of course, we first get to enjoy the sight of them enjoying the vices.  In order to create some sort of “story” violence, greed, lust ( and let’s throw in gluttony, sloth, envy and pride as well), are all coated with thin layers of lame plots which purport to warn the audience of some vile social threat of which we must all be made aware.  For example, “Reefer Madness” ostensibly existed to warn parents of the dangers of that “narcotic” marijuana.  Its original title was “Tell Your Children” – that could have been the title to any of these flicks.

                         

In order to get around local moral restrictions as well as the film industry Production Code, these movies included “educational speeches”, or at the very least absurd plot devices intended to mete out the harshest possible life lessons for the teens in the story.  They all included at least one violent death, and usually a few prison sentences for the survivors at the finale.   

Production Code – A self-regulatory code of ethics created in 1930

 by the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America

 and put into effect in 1934.  The code set forth general standards

 of “good taste” and specific do’s and don’ts concerning what

 could and could not be shown in American Movies.  Among

 the general principles of the code was the requirement that “no

 picture shall be produced which will lower the standards of those

 who see it”.  Its seal of approval was denied any film that did

 not meet its morality standards, a risk few producers dared take. 

The Film Encyclopedia, Ephraim Katz.  1979

The advertising and marketing are done in a shotgun manner.  Get the movie into a small town movie theater, market the hell out of it, show the movie, grab the money and get out of town quick.

“Maniac” achieves a weird one-up-manship over a movie like “Reefer Madness”.  Not only are the immorality and nudity ramped up, so are the violence and just plain goofiness. Any attempt at “acting” is purely accidental.  “Maniac” makes “Reefer Madness” look restrained, not to mention polished and professional.   

The story involves Don Maxwell, a former vaudeville performer who specialized in impersonations, and is now lab assistant to mad scientist Doctor Meirschultz.  The crazy doctor has developed a serum which, when injected into a dead body, will achieve re-animation.  Doctor Meirschultz has some sort of ‘goods’ on Maxwell, evidently the police would be interested in finding out where he is.  This forces Maxwell to assist the scientist in his nutty experiments.  When the doctor gets the inspired idea to have his assistant shoot himself so he can be re-animated, Maxwell turns the tables on the good doctor and shoots him instead.  When patients start showing up to see the doctor, Maxwell – remember, he can do impressions - is able to impersonate the loony doctor with ease.  A fake beard, a pair of glasses, whiten his hair and voila!

Phony doctor

With extraordinarily poor timing, Mrs. Buckley brings her husband to see Dr. Meirschultz.  Mr. Buckley has a delusion that he is “the orangutang murderer in Poe’s murderer in the rue morgue” (sic). This woman’s performance is so embarrassingly bad it would be worthwhile only if it came with a free coffee coupon. The character of the insane husband seems to exist solely to include a scene of a woman (the re-animated one) being abducted and attacked by him.  This actor gives what is probably the best performance in the film.  Seriously.  At least he’s trying.  Here he is transforming into the ape after the phony doctor has risked a possible malpractice suit by mistakenly injecting him with "hyper adrenaline".  You also get a taste of the wife’s performance. 

Another memorable performance is given by an actor un-named in the credits.    His character seems to  live next door to the doctor and runs some kind of cat ranch.  Yes, you did read that correctly.  He raises the cats in order to skin them, sell the pelts, feed the carcasses ….well, I’ll let him tell you as he explains it to a visiting detective.

This brings me to the subject of subtext.  ‘Cats’ seems to be a subtext in this film.  Not just cats, but inexplicable scenes of cats fighting with other cats, cats in cages, cats chasing mice, cats tripping Maxwell as he is about to steal a dead body from a mortuary,  Maxwell popping out a cat's eye and eating it, and a cat eating a human heart that the doctor had been keeping alive in a jar.  In other words, cats.

Subtext:  1.  an underlying theme in a piece of writing.

 2.  a message which is not stated directly but can be inferred.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged

10^th Edition.  2009

Subtext.  This image was not taken from the film.

Another important subtext to this film is ‘women’.  Specifically, women who are partly or completely undressed, women being fondled by the phony doctor, women who are being kidnapped and attacked by ape-men, women in the bathtub, women dancing around their bedroom in their skivvies, or women fighting and ripping each other’s clothes off. There is absolutely no reason for any of these scenes.  Wait a minute, there is absolutely no reason for ANY of the scenes in the movie.  So, I guess it really doesn’t matter.  Okay, there IS a reason for the ‘woman’ scenes.  Titillation of the audience. 

More subtext.  This image is from the movie.

On second thought, the word ‘subtext’ might be giving it too much dignity.       

The two mad scientists arrive at the morgue to steal a corpse for the re-animation deal.  In order to not look suspicious (!) Maxwell impersonates the coroner.  (Really, how could this guy not have made it in show biz?).  While they are reviving a corpse with the wonder fluid, two morgue attendants provide some running commentary on their jobs.  At least I think so.  It’s hard to tell since they both seem to have missed Elocution Day in acting school.  One of them sounds like Billy Bob Thornton in “Sling Blade”.  However, he sounds like Sir John Gielgud compared to the other one who says something like…. “Buhtwin de gunsturs anthe awtodrivurs wedonneed anuthur warta carry offthe popalayshun.”  Sorry, that's the best I could do.

There is a distasteful hint of necrophilia when the attendants discuss the “beaut” that just came in.  They are referring to the corpse of a recently attractive young woman.  However, in this movie necrophilia might be considered a light and breezy plot point.  These two would probably creep out Leatherface. 

The movie not only mentions “Murders in the Rue Morgue”, but also cribs substantially from Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Black Cat”.  In order to hide the scientist’s corpse from the police, Maxwell walls it up in the basement.  Unbeknownst to him, the cat he hated has also been trapped behind the brick wall, and gives him away with its cries when a group of pretty lethargic police finally show up.  Poe receives no acknowledgment in the credits and I have the feeling that the Baltimore genius would be just fine with that. 

I forgot to mention that during the scenes in the laboratory there is an irritating noise which sounds like someone a few feet away using a typewriter.  Probably finishing the script for the next scene.  Seriously.

I will admit that there is one thing about this movie that is almost enjoyable.  The actor who plays Doctor Meirschultz is so over the top, so extravagantly weird, so bizarrely eccentric, that it is entertaining.  He is the only person I’ve ever heard in a movie who actually makes that laughing sound that you usually only hear the bad guys do in cartoons.  You know the one I mean:   “BWAAA-HAA-HAA-HAA-HAA-HAAAA!!!!”

I could go on and on with this movie; it is of an almost unbelievable badness.  I haven't even mentioned the inexplicable shot of the leaping bullfrog or the inane philosophical soliloquies. The first time I watched it was out of curiosity.  Then I watched it a second time because I couldn’t believe what I saw the first time.  Finally I had to force myself to watch it a third time to remind myself of some of its horrors so I could write this.  I feel like I should get a Purple Heart; something for going above and beyond the call of duty for a movie reviewer.

About the title - “Maniac” was also used as the title for an 1980 movie about a serial killer.  I haven’t seen that movie, but I’m going to take a wild guess that it is a little better than this one.  It is also the title to the song most closely associated with the movie “Flashdance”.

The song – “Maniac” by Michael Sambello.  Released in 1983,

 this was featured in the movie “Flashdance”, which starred

Jennifer Beals as a welder by day, dancer by night.

Sembello wrote this with his songwriting partner Dennis Matkosky,

 who got the idea when he saw the William Lustig 1980 movie

 “ Maniac”, which is about a serial killer who stalks his victims

 in New York City.

                            

 Sembello: "He came up with the original kernel of inspiration and

 came to me with the basic idea and groove and I believe the temporary

 lyrics for the chorus he had were:
    'He's a maniac, maniac that's for sure
     He will kill your cat and nail him to the door'

That direction obviously wasn't going to work at which point the genius

 of Phil Ramone, producer of the soundtrack who had the vision to

 see the potential of the song, asked us to change it to the present concept

 of a girl possessed with the passion of a gift for dance. Without Phil it

 would not have happened.  It was nominated for an academy award

 and was disqualified according to 'academy rules' because the song

 was changed from the original and was not originally written solely for

 the film, which pisses me off to this day."

(The song) was accidentally included on a tape of Sembello's songs his wife sent to Paramount for consideration in Flashdance. The

 studio loved it and used it in the movie.

(Also, it) was commonly used in aerobics classes, which was a big

trend at the time.

From the Website “Songfacts”

It’s too bad the song wasn’t around in time for our movie.  The original lyrics sound as if they could have been written for it. 

          'He's a maniac, maniac that's for sure
           He will kill your cat and nail him to the door'

Such a shame.  Seriously.

I think I will let Dr. Meirschultz have the last word, and I believe he speaks for us all.
.

-->