Is Atheism/Religious Apathy Killing People?

“Deaths of despair” are rising among middle-aged whites, and may be due to a reduction in religion.

Source: Photo by Zachary DeBottis from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/silhuoette-of-a-person-2953863/

According to Marketwatch, which reports a study by researchers at several universities, “deaths of despair” have been growing dramatically among middle-class white Americans.

Deaths of despair, according to Wikipedia, are deaths attributed to “suicide, drug or alcohol overdose, or liver failure.”

Note the researchers:

The authors noted that many measures of religious adherence began to decline in the late 1980s. They find that the large decline in religious practice was driven by the group experiencing the subsequent increases in mortality: white middle-aged Americans without a college degree.

The disturbing rise in these tragic types of deaths among middle-class whites is not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on for a while, and has mostly been attributed to the opioid epidemic and economic inequality. However, this is perhaps the first article I’ve seen that attributes the trend to a decline of religion. That’s been a theory of mine for awhile, so it’s nice to see a study back up what myself and probably a lot of others might have already known intuitively.

This article struck me for a number of reasons. I am white (partly, anyway). I am middle-aged. And I am a former fundamentalist Chick-tract-passing-out Christian teenager turned non-religious/agnostic adult.

I’m almost smack dab in the bullseye of the target demographic.

The only exception is I do have a college degree, at least as far as a liberal arts diploma counts as a “degree.” FYI, it doesn’t.

Income and net worth wise, I’m well past the U.S. median, though still considered middle-class.

Despite this, I don’t engage in any behaviors that would lead to a “death of despair.” I don’t drink, smoke, or do drugs.

I do, however, struggle with general feelings of apathy and nihilism, which I would attribute partly to my agnostic worldview. Emerging from the vortex of fundamentalist Christianity was probably the most psychologically grueling process I’ve ever undergone. And I’d be lying if I said that I feel “freed” or “liberated” from the supposed shackles of religion.

Going from thinking you’ve got a mansion in the sky waiting for you after you die, to realizing you’re going to simply cease existing when your ticket’s finally punched, ain’t an easy thing to do.

Though nowadays I do lend credence to the concept of reincarnation. If it was possible for me to exist once, who’s to say it can’t happen again, in some future universe? Lightning strikes twice all the time, contrary to the old saying.

Sometimes, I wish I could go back. Sometimes, I wish, like Cypher in The Matrix, I could reinsert myself back into my religious worldview, and forget I’d ever left in the first place. It was comforting. Hopeful. It gave a sense of peace. I mean, how reassuring is it to think you’re communicating with the all-powerful creator of the universe when you close your eyes and pray? As opposed to just whispering into empty air?

But once you’re out of the religion game, there really is no going back. It would take monumental self-hypnosis, or a literal Road to Damascus moment, to psyche myself back into becoming a true believer.

I don’t align with the atheist movement, which is predominantly far left-wing, with a small libertarian aspect — two political ideologies I don’t espouse — and is also borderline toxic and hateful. I find the movement has a lot of misplaced anger towards religion, and is populated with ax grinders burned from bad childhood religious experiences. I am not anti-religious. I think religion has an important, even vital place in society, and for most people. Just not for me.

However, this article has prompted me to consider a question:

Is it worth believing in a “lie” if it makes your life better and gives you a sense of purpose?

I put “lie” in quotes because who’s to say that any one religion or another is truly just mythology or not, and whether a god or gods exist or not. I’m content with simply saying, “I don’t know,” hence my agnostic posture. I prefer to keep an open mind rather than make some arrogant declaration of certainty.

I don’t think the solution to all of these deaths of despair is simply getting back to religion. I don’t think a revival, even a Billy Graham-level one, would do the trick. Science has put too much of a wedge between glib faith and the cold, unrelenting force of reality. Information is too readily available that debunks so many religious claims, that in years past, would have gone unchecked and unchallenged. Naivete came easy thirty plus years ago. Now you’ve got to actively work at it. Facts are a mere Google search away.

For instance — and I’m ashamed to admit this, but I’m going to anyway — I believed into my young adult years the claim of a young earth. One of my “evidential” claims was the fact that Neil Armstrong only stepped into a small layer of dust on the moon, which would indicate, given the annual amounts of space dust that land on our lunar neighbor, that creation had only been around for 6,000 years. Then I found out how the dust compacts into the hard surface over time, leaving only a powdery top layer, and my long-held “theory” got blown apart.

Hey, at least that’s not as bad as claiming God is real just because the banana can fit in your hand, like Mr. Ray Comfort.

Living in a “post-religion phase,” coccooned in cold scientific truths, has its downsides. The loss of religion leaves a huge vacuum. The human mind is too active, reflective, and unwieldy in some ways to only subsist off of raw data. It craves meaning, purpose, and fulfillment, which are not things the world readily provides. Especially not our modern culture, which prioritizes consumerism, and trains its young to mainly aspire to corporate citizenship.

I graduated college almost five years ago. In my second to last semester, at the end of the term, one of my professors asked the class what our plans in life were post-college. The question did not indicate career specifically. It was general and open-ended. It was more about the vision we had for our lives. We were all well-acquainted with one another at this point. It was two weeks before Christmas.

Everybody answered something related to either career or continuing advanced degrees, with many stating they would be weaving political activism into their lives in one form or another. Not one person mentioned a desire or plans to get married or start a family. This was a class that was two-thirds female, incidentally, all ranging in ages from 22–25.

Everybody was apparently a good little worker bee eager to punch the time clock.

The lone exception was a young female international student from a Muslim country. She’d had an arranged marriage when she was a teenager, and already had one child. I don’t advocate for arranged marriages. But there was no doubt that this young woman felt fulfilled in her life. She often spoke glowingly about her daughter, and had published poems about her. This young woman was also a good student, though she was held back by the language barrier. She often reached out to me for help outside the classroom.

From a Western perspective, this young woman was “exploited,” because of her arranged marriage, and having a daughter at such a young age. Yet, I never got a sense from her that she felt exploited whatsoever. What’s more, she was freely pursuing an education. It’s not like she was being kept locked in the house in some patriarchal dungeon.

Even if you see religion as superstitious remnants of mankind’s ancient past, there’s no denying the role it plays as a social and psychological glue. Remove it, and people fill in the gaps with something else. And that something else may not always be comprehensive enough of a framework to navigate through the struggles of life. Things like career, poltical activism, social media, pop culture, even movie franchise fandom. Star Wars and Marvel may as well be de facto religions by now. Those are all nice things to care about, but I doubt any of them are enough for most people.

Religion also used to foster many romantic relationships. Now millions of singles turn to the slot machine world of Tinder, Match, Bumble, Hinge, and others. Reducing themselves to a mass of digitized pixels to be swiped away with the flick of a finger. A generation of secular wizards poofing away unacceptable mates on a magic screen. No wonder global population is plummeting.

Even basic relationships seem to have gone missing. Community is largely atomized and directed online. As though our souls were being slowly sucked into the cyber world, leaving skin-shaped husks behind to play pretend in the “real world.”

Ask most people today what their spiritual views are, and you’ll likely get the standard answer: “I’m not really religious.” A statement almost always delivered with a palpaple grimness, if not discreet regret. But whether one adheres to one denomination or another, or subscribes to one holy book, or the other, is not really the point. It’s more about what thread keeps your seams from splitting apart. For thousands of years, for most people, religion was that thread, however nonsensical, quaint, or silly it may seem to another’s perspective. But sadly, it seems many people have had that thread pulled, and whatever replacements they’ve found are sorely lacking.

Modern Super Bowl Rings are Oversized, Gaudy, and Ridiculous-Looking

Are you commemorating a hard-fought championship that took blood, sweat, and tears to earn, or starring in a rap music video?

Source: https://twitter.com/nfl/status/1358615158562709505

A lifetime ago I worked at a Saturn dealership in Memphis, TN. One of the very first — if not the first — Saturn dealership to ever open in the country, in fact.

My career as a “sales advisor” (or “lot lizard,” a term used for both car salesmen and truck stop prostitutes, interestingly) was brutishly short. As was the Saturn brand itself, actually. The niche GM label went belly-up in 2010 due to the 2008 Wall Street crash that pulverized the car company’s balance sheet.

I did, however, have the chance to meet some cool people during my short tenure. One of whom was a former Dallas Cowboys football player. He and his wife showed up one day interested in buying an Outlook. I had no idea who he was, but judging by the way our Sales Manager immediately showed the couple into his office, I sensed they weren’t your usual tire kicking weekend walk-ins.

At some point my manager asked me over to his office to deliver some paperwork. And it was then I noticed the twinkling rock on the man’s right ring finger.

“Yes, Dean, that’s a Super Bowl ring,” my manager said, as if I didn’t know.

I was introduced to the former pro athlete, who had played on the Cowboys during the ’70s, when they went to five Super Bowls, winning two of them, under Hall of Fame Coach Tom Landry and QB Roger Staubach. The ’70s was when Dallas really built its “America’s Team” identity and its winning culture. Two decades later Dallas would dominate again, winning three Super Bowls in the ’90s with QB Troy Aikman and RB Emmitt Smith. Since those two eras of dominance, Dallas’s post-season record has been rather spotty. But there was a time when the Cowboys were synonomous with victory, and the swaggering pride of dynasty.

Seeing that I’d noticed the ring, the former Cowboy immediately, without saying anything, twisted it off his finger and handed it to me so I could examine it up close. This must have been something he did often. Super Bowl rings are quite exquisite and eye-catching. I mean, just look at this thing:

Source: https://sports.ha.com/itm/football-collectibles/others/1977-dallas-cowboys-super-bowl-xii-championship-ring-presented-to-harvey-martin/a/7130-80096.s

Beautiful, right?

Even back in the ’70s, Super Bowl rings were jumbo-sized. The 1978 Cowboys ring, which they earned defeating the Denver Broncos 27–10, felt heavy, but not so much that it would be cumbersome to wear. It had a rough, scratchy exterior due to the numerous diamonds studded into its surface. But its real “weight” came from the victory it represented, and the teamwork and athletic exceptionalism required to achieve that victory. Way bigger than any wedding band or class ring would be, the Dallas ring I held felt big enough to encapsulate the importance of the Super Bowl win. It felt “appropriate-sized.”

Nowadays, Super Bowl rings are gaudy, ridiculously over-sized, and look like something you’d wear if you were making a Weird Al Yankovic parody of a rap music video.

Just take a look at the Los Angeles Rams Super Bowl ring from last year’s championship game, as worn by DeSean Jackson:

Source: https://www.si.com/nfl/rams/news/los-angeles-desean-jackson-super-bowl-ring-championship-las-vegas-raiders

WTF? There is no way a ring that size is even remotely comfortable or practical to wear on an everyday basis, or even once in a while. A ring that size isn’t even really a “ring.” It’s more of a Christmas tree ornament that you stick on your finger. A ceremonial pendant that you’d realistically only wear once a year, likely during championship team reunions or public media events.

I know most of these players are big guys with sausage fingers, but a ring of such elephantine proportion would look too large even on Andre the Giant’s hand.

Imagine trying to stick your hand in your pockets, or conducting routine activities like opening a door, driving, or pulling out your wallet with a glittery rock the size of a strawberry sticking out past your knuckles. It’d be clanking, snagging, sticking, and getting caught on everything. And all those physical impacts would risk damaging it. Diamonds may be the toughest material on earth, but they can be knocked loose. The New England Patriots ring from Super Bowl 51 famously has 283 diamonds (as a trolling nod to the 28–3 score midway through the third quarter before Tom Brady mounted the team’s epic comeback). That’s a lot of rocks to keep track of.

Not to mention a ring that big would unduly attract thieves and other low-lifes. You wear bling that size and you might as well be announcing into a bullhorn that you have a shit ton of money, and are therefore the perfect robbery target. Does the NFL expect its players to maintain a security detail everywhere they go for the rest of their lives?

A championship ring should be a complement to your attire, not a liability. It should be something you could wear everyday, if desired. Not something that realistically you need to stick in a safe or safety deposit box for the 364 days a year that you can’t wear it.

There’s another issue, too. These gaudy, comically gargantuan finger stones, to me, devalue the true meaning of the championship itself. I mean, the NFL is already a pretty glitzy theatrical affair as it is. Many stadiums shoot off fireworks after a touchdown. You’ve got jumbo screens everywhere, decorated dancing cheerleaders, war chants, bright lights, confetti, trophy presentations, billion dollar broadcasting deals, centimillion dollar player contracts, and hundreds of millions of fans tuning in every week. Adding in a Super Bowl ring the size of a Volkswagen Beetle kind of seems like overkill.

A Super Bowl ring is all about both a player’s individual effort, and a team’s collective effort, to achieve perfection. It’s about the brotherhood you forged that year in pursuit of the top trophy. The relationships made during the season that will likely last a lifetime. Going all “Pimp My Ride” on the championship ring kind of cheapens the whole deal. It places more emphasis on a gaudy trinket, rather than on those intangible sacred bonds.

Making matters worse, in the effort to keep one-upping every previous year’s ring, the latest thing now is making the tops removable. A trend the Tampa Bay Buccaneers started after their 2020 season win over the Kansas City Chiefs. Take a look at the features for the championship game number 55 ring:

Now, is that “cool?” Well, yeah, sure. The Rams did their own version last year. Their ring is modeled off of SoFi Stadium, lets you peer through the side into a miniature version of the field, and even has a section of the game ball inserted into the surface.

These newer split rings are definitely a creative upgrade. But they’re also risky and kind of stupid. How long until a player loses the top half? Or until the snap-on fittings become worn and don’t seat properly? A ring with a top like that is obviously meant to be shown off again and again. Eventually they’ll be worn enough to render the ring unwearable. Then what do you do? Stick it in a drawer? Kind of defeats the purpose of getting to wear a championship ring in the first place.

At the rate we’re going, by Super Bowl 100, rings will be the size of footballs. Players will need special gauntlets to wear them. They’ll cost a million dollars each, and require their own seperate mining quarries to procure the needed precious metals and stones. When you press a button the ring will open up, and a holographic display will show the player’s career highlights and a recording of the championship game. And they’ll also have mortar tubes installed so players can launch commemorative fireworks whenever they get nostalgic about the big game.

Going back to the Dallas Cowboys Super Bowl XII ring I got to hold back in 2007, it was modestly “small” and “quaint” by today’s standards. But it was clearly something the retired player wore probably everyday. Everyday for almost thirty years. That’s a long time for a piece of jewelry to last being worn constantly, and a real testament to the hardiness and durability of a Super Bowl ring. Despite its “diminutive” dimensions, it was still pretty awesome to see and hold.

Afterall, it’s what the ring symbolizes — the teamwork, sacrifice, blood, sweat, and tears, and everything else that goes into winning a championship — that matters most. Not the size of the bling.

Four Helpful and Humorous Writing Secrets From Jay Cronley, Author of ‘Quick Change’

Source: Book cover for ‘Quick Change’ by Jay Cronley

So, I was doing some preliminary research on my next film review for the ‘90s-era “cromedy” (crime-comedy) Quick Change, when I stumbled across one of the most hilarious book introductions I’ve ever read.

Firstly, since you may not know, Jay Cronley was an author and newspaper columnist who wrote for Tulsa World, who achieved some notoriety in the late 1980s/early ‘90s for a string of comedy films made from his books. These adaptations include Good Vibes, made into the 1989 comedy Let It Ride, starring Richard Dreyfuss. Funny Farm, made in 1988, starring Chevy Chase. And Quick Change, which was adapted twice into film. First in France in 1985, then in America in 1990, starring and directed by Bill Murray, and co-starring Geena Davis and Randy Quaid.

Cronley had quite an under-the-radar run. For awhile, he was like the comedy version of Ira Levin. Everything he wrote got filmed. However, we’re not here to talk about his films, but about his writing. More specifically, his introduction to his 1981 novel Quick Change, rereleased in 2006 (not an affiliate link) with his reflections on the impact of his book.

Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/author-newspaper-columnist-jay-cronley-dies-at-73/

Quick Change is “about a bank robbery,” as Cronley writes in the opening line of his introduction. It’s a comedy about three thieves who mastermind a clever heist in New York City, only to run into every problem imaginable trying to escape Gotham.

Cronley’s book introduction for Quick Change contains a lot of interesting, useful, and funny writing tips that I felt would be good to share. As an author of dark comedies and satires myself, I certainly appreciated happening across this gem. And I’m someone who almost always skips author intros.

So, here are four writing secrets from Jay Cronley’s Quick Change intro:

1. Dig Deep to Find an Original Idea

Writes Cronley:

Before I began to write this novel, I sat down with a pencil and a notepad and I thought of every way I had ever seen anything stolen…Name it, I noted it. Then I began making notes of all the angles and methods ever used to take what isn’t yours.

It’s fair to say that the crime genre is a fairly well-mined one. Especially with famous authors like Donald E. Westlake (more on him later), Agatha Christie, and classic writers like Edgar Allen Poe and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, among many others, having hatched almost every conceivable crime story over the last 150 years of publishing history. It’s true now. It was also true back in the early ’80s, when Cronley wrote his book.

This sounds like an easy thing to do. Just research a bunch of plots and then write something that hasn’t been done before. What’s so hard about that, right? Except few writers do that. Instead, they grab hold of whatever new idea they have, refusing to let go. But if you’re trying to break through, you have to do something that hasn’t been done before, that will get you noticed ahead of the many other writers working in your genre.

Speaking of genre, this little tip also means you have to know your genre through and through. And that means reading the hell out of it. Or at least knowing some of the common tropes and twists, so that you can surprise with some of your own.

2. Don’t Give Your Good Ideas Away to Other Authors!

Apparently, all of Cronley’s research for the “last great bank robbery idea on earth” attracted the attention of Donald E. Westlake, whom Cronley considered, “arguably the greatest living American writer.” Westlake actually wanted to use Cronley’s idea for Quick Change in one of his own books. But, as Cronley writes:

“No,” I said to Don on the phone that night. “You can’t have my idea. It took me a year to think of it and a year to write it.”

It’s actually rather hilarious to me the idea of Westlake, the legendary crime author with almost 100 titles to his credit, coming to a lesser known author like Cronley hoping to procure a good story idea. It makes me wonder if this is a common thing amongst best-selling authors. It just seems wrong and impolite. Popular musicians borrow, steal, and pay homage to one another all the time, though, so I suppose published authors would do the same. I know I’ve provided good feedback, and even suggested story plots and ideas to other writers on forums and comment threads. But I’ve never given away, or even discussed an idea of mine that I felt had merit for a good book or screenplay.

3. Hollywood Sucks Because Nobody Reads

This is right in line with Stephen King’s famous On Writing maxim: “Read a lot, write a lot.” Cronley, who was criticising the creative shortcomings that were plaguing Hollywood even back in the early 2000s, goes on to say:

The simple reason behind the creative crisis is that nobody reads good stuff, which is the old stuff. The only way to learn how to write well is to read. If nobody reads, you get that Adam Sandler baby-talk thing.

This is especially true nowadays. It is so so easy to get wrapped up in the mindless bits and pieces of Twitter and other short-form-style social media. I find myself getting caught in this no-reading trap all the time. But sadly, so many today are smartphone slaves, addicted to the dopamine-giving hits from divisive news headlines, celebrity gossip, or vapid Buzzfeed-style articles that convey little to no useful information. To say nothing of the infinite scroll of YouTube videos, TikTok shorts, streaming shows and movies, Twitch broadcasts, and immersive video games. Who has time for classic literature?

This problem extends even beyond the general population, to English majors, writers, and novelists like myself, as well. When I was in college, I rarely encountered classmates who’d read much of anything beyond the Harry Potter series, or other modern books published prior to the 1980s. And that’s honestly a crime, because classics are classics for a reason.

4. Movie Deals Don’t Always Lead to a Pot of Gold — In Fact, They Might Even Get You Sued For $10 Million

Source: Warner Bros. ‘Quick Change’ (1990)

Quick Change quickly landed a movie option, which is a contract during which someone has a given amont of time to make a piece of intellectual property into a film. Sometimes options may only last for a year, and an author might be paid a few thousand dollars. The company that first landed the option to Quick Change wound up in bankruptcy. Right before the option expired, Cronley’s agent offered the book to a producer in France. However, this caused the first option holder to sue Cronley for almost $10 million.

Fortunately, the lawsuit was eventually tossed. The French producer went on to make Quick Change into the film Hold-Up in 1985, starring Jean-Paul Belmondo. The Bill Murray version would, of course, come later. But it goes to show that sometimes Hollywood deals can actually be spring-loaded boxing gloves ready to punch you in the face.

If you haven’t checked out some of Jay Cronley’s books, now’s a good time. If you can find them, of course. Many of them are out of print. But evidently, judging by the Amazon link above, Quick Change is still readily available.

‘Quick Change’: A Solid, Sadly Forgotten “Cromedy” Sapphire

Pagliacci meets the heist genre in a comical crime caper that proves there are no easy getaways.

Source: By The poster art can or could be obtained from Warner Bros.., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5364770

In July of last year I initated a review of the late ‘80s/early ’90s sub-genre I’ve dubbed the “cromedy” (crime/comedy), beginning with early 1992’s Christian Slater-starring Kuffs as my inaugural piece. This article will constitute the second in what I’d like to make an ongoing series.

But why bother commencing a cromedy concatenation, especially about a largely underappreciated sub-genre relegated to a bygone era? There are several reasons. First, a personal one. Many of these films were in perpetual rotation on such channels as TBS Superstation and USA back in the late ’90s, a time when I was a teenager and constantly curating my isolative boredom on the weekends with middling minor hits. The network channels had all the big movies (which I’d already seen), and my house didn’t have premium cable. So, I satisfied myself with more niche fare. Most importantly, this was a sub-genre I’d discovered for myself, rather than one presented or pre-screened for me by friends, family, or parents.

Secondly, I’ve recently begun seeing movies beyond mere vehicles of entertainment, but as time capsules. Little glowing glimpses to particular periods in history. The crime/comedy sub-genre is, of course, not unique to the late ‘80s/early ’90s. Abbott and Costello were satisfying studio contracts with such films as Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man and Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff back in the 1940s and ’50s. However, the “cromedy” era is one I’ve designated as ranging from about 1984, with the release of Beverly Hills Cop, the sub-genre’s undisputed apex predator, concluding with the Tarantino-penned True Romance (1993). The foot fetish dialogue virtuoso would effectively obliterate cromedies forever with Pulp Fiction the following year, a film that instantly rendered any crime flick obsolete if it didn’t have henchmen riffing on about cheeseburgers and pop culture.

Odd as it is to say, but American movies set in the late ’80s/early ’90s, and earlier, are practically period pieces at this point. They depict a very different cultural landscape. Before the internet, cell phones, social media, largescale racial integration, and the financialization and digitization of the economy. Politically, the era takes place right at the tail end of the Cold War, and well before 9/11 pricked the USA’s bubble of security. People smoked (on airplanes even!) without verbal warning signifiers, words like “faggot” and “retard” were casually slung around by film protagonists, and sexual harassment and violence, even against underage teens, were often playfully portrayed. Unacceptably strange behaviors that would obviously never fly in today’s Puritanical woke climate.

Aside from Eddie Murphy’s monster ’84 smash about a Detroit cop who fish-out-of-waters in upscale L.A., and A Fish Called Wanda, there are few if any other diamonds in the cromedy genre. It’s an oddball assortment of sapphires, rubies, occasional pearls, and a whole lot of quartz.

Source: Warner Bros. Pictures ‘Quick Change’ (1990)

Which brings me finally to Quick Change, a strong sapphiric entry. A 1990 crime comedy starring Bill Murray, Geena Davis, and Randy Quaid as three bank robbers who pull off the perfect heist on a New York City financial institution, only to get hilariously bogged down in Looney Tunes-esque fashion in their escape from Gotham. The film remains Murray’s only directing credit, a distinction he shares with Howard Franklin, who co-helmed the picture.

Despite having watched the film numerous times during its syndication heyday on cable in the late ’90s, and then again recently, I only just find out that it’s actually based on a book. The novel of the same name was published in 1981 by Jay Cronley. Cronley was an author of eight comedy novels, most of which became films in the mid-80s through 1990, starring such actors as Chevy Chase (Funny Farm) and Richard Dreyfuss (Let It Ride, based on the novel Good Vibes).

If the cromedy genre has Founding Fathers, Jay Cronley is perhaps its Ben Franklin. Even his last name sounds serendipitously similar. Cromedy/Cronley. How nice is that?

According to Cronley in his introduction to the 2006 re-release of his novel Quick Change, he spent almost a year wracking his brain looking for the last great heist idea. His efforts more than pay off with a clever high-concept robbery that appears to do a little more than inspire the Joker’s mob bank hit in the opening to The Dark Knight 18 years later. Granted the Joker character predates Quick Change by decades, and the Clown Prince of Crime no doubt pilfered many a vault in the comics, but I’d be surprised if Christopher Nolan hadn’t seen and been a fan of the Bill Murray film before making the Batman sequel.

Murray, playing “Grimm,” shows up a Manhattan bank dressed in a full-on clown costume, complete with a suicide vest packed with dynamite. After initially failing to garner any attention with his droll announcement that “this a robbery,” (this is Manhattan, afterall) he fires his gun into the air. That does the trick. Police are summoned by the notorious under the counter RED BUTTON alert system, and a SWAT team assembled. The criminal clown is quickly surrounded. Except this is all part of his perfect plan. Grimm makes some outrageous demands, including a monster truck, which the hapless but earnest Police Chief Rotzinger accommodates in exchange for hostages. Except the first three hostages are actually Grimm’s accomplices, Phyllis (Geena Davis) his girlfriend, Loomis (Randy Quaid) his childhood best friend, and Grimm himself (sans clown make-up). Who have all taped the stolen money under their clothes. Hence the film’s double-meaning title.

Unrecognized due to disguises, the trio slip away to a rendezvous point in a ghetto section of town, where they plan to leave for JFK Airport and eventually, a spot in the Caribbean, with their ill-gotten gains.

It’s a masterful plan. The police are completely fooled. But just when it appears Grimm and company are set to make a clean getaway, all their good luck runs out. They get lost en route to the “BQE” (Brooklyn Queens Expressway), held-up by a gun-wielding apartment visitor, robbed by a conman, lose their car, stymied by a rulemeister bus driver, and have to fool their way through the mob, a foreign cab driver who doesn’t speak English, and a bizarre assortment of NYC characters. All the while Loomis regresses into infantile buffoonery, and just-pregnant Phyllis threatens to leave her beau to protect their baby from a life of crime.

Quick Change has a lot going for it aside from its clever concept. It has some cool cameos, including Phil Hartman, Stanley Tucci, Tony Shalhoub, and a post-Robocop pre-That 70’s Show Kurtwood Smith. An amusing, if one-note, musical score. And some endearingly nostalgic technical touches: Payphones, paper maps, and film spool recording equipment.

Source: Warner Bros. Pictures ‘Quick Change’ (1990)

The film seems comfortable relying mostly on its comedic sequences. What little dramatic character moments there are barely register. Unlike the turbulently jocular relationship dynamic between Wanda, Archie, and Otto in the smartly-scripted A Fish Called Wanda, another heist film that focuses on the aftermath of the crime rather than the crime itself, Quick Change remains more plot-focused and surface-level. Yet its superficial trappings don’t seem to hurt it. It still boasts witty dialogue, colorful performances, surprising enough twists and turns, all delivered with a well-paced flair. It gets the job done, and more than earns its distinction as a sadly forgotten cromedy gem.

What questionable points remain are largely ignorable, if not workably humorous. Grimm’s bank robbery adds up to a whopping one million dollar haul, split three ways. 1990’s $333,000 in today’s inflation-spiked currency is about three quarters of a million dollars. Hardly enough to go on the lam permanently from law enforcement. Much less raise a new family. Though it comes close to Walter White’s initial, uh, fundraising goal of $737,000, which the chemistry teacher sets for himself when he first starts selling meth in Breaking Bad.

Then there’s the glaring issue of Police Chief Rotzinger seemingly figuring out the criminal trio are escaping on a plane just taking off, after Grimm provides the false name of “Skipowski” (he’d used the name “Skip” as an alias while robbing the bank). Are we to assume the NYC Police Chief wouldn’t have the ability to have a plane grounded if he suspected there were three bank robbers on board, which the city has been on a manhunt for all day? Even as a credulous teen, I found the movie’s ending rather implausible. As a middle-aged adult, even more so. I imagine a Spongebob-style “Three Hours Later” time card popping up, then cutting to Grimm and friends getting arrested on the tarmac by the feds. Fade to black.

For a very brief time, Quick Change was my favorite film, if only because I hardly encountered people that knew it existed and it therefore felt like something I alone had “discovered.” And this was even back in the late ’90s, well before Bill Murray’s resurgence as a serious actor in Lost in Translation and a fixture in Wes Anderson films. As a Murray vehicle, Quick Change’s Grimm hardly competes against his more popular roles. Which is a shame, because it’s one of his most natural performances. Although, I will say that in addition to possibly influencing The Dark Knight’s bank robbery opening, I noticed a lot of similarity between Murray’s quippy, quick-thinking, and smart-mouthed portrayal of Grimm, and Bob Odenkirk’s wily criminal lawyer Saul Goodman. Grimm dances out of danger with his mouth at multiple points. Even talking down a gun-wielding psycho, outwitting a local mob boss, and of course, playfully taunting the police. Grimm and Goodman could practically be brothers.

Quick Change may lack the charisma and energy of Bevery Hills Cop, and the intelligence of A Fish Called Wanda, but as a cromedy entry, it’s a solid sapphire.

Do yourself a favor, and check out Quick Change, both the movie and the book.