 | An Austin Winner: Mr. Pumpkin Takes Houston Film Honor By Patrick Taggart | Austin American-Statesman, May 3, 1987 Those who saw Mr. Pumpkin last fall at a showing of short films at the Ritz Theater won't be surprised to learn that the 11-minute movie won third place in the 20th annual Houston International Film Festival late last month. Produced, written, directed and edited by 19-year-old Daniel Erickson of Austin, the movie is a technically assured and tremendously funny account of a young man whose Halloween pumpkin turns into a monster. This is a terrific success story for Erickson and everyone involved in the film, because few if any in the cast and crew were involved at the time in any formal film course, nor were any of them professional filmmakers. This was one of those labors of love carefully assembled on a minimal budget, with the participants gathering to work during a series of weekends. Or as Monte Williams, one of the actors, put it last week: "We didn't know about a lot of things," he said. "We didn't know about continuity, for instance. We didn't know how to spell continuity." Just as you don't have to be a chicken to know a rotten egg, you don't have to be able to spell continuity to make a good little movie. Several months have passed since I saw Mr. Pumpkin, but as I recall, the action opens on Halloween night at a typical suburban residence, where Father (Williams) is eating a hamburger and watching television. He cautions his son Leroy (Jacob Anderson) not to eat too much candy, and warns that if he does, Mr. Pumpkin will come to get him during the night. The boy puts his pumpkin in the window and goes to bed. Within minutes, the pumpkin transforms itself into a menacing apparition. Nobody gets hurt, and there are plenty of laughs before the film ends with Williams throwing his hamburger at the television. In other hot action, the family cat (Stunt Cat) gets beaned by a piece of pie. It's a wry, smart and straightforward little comedy, graced by technical achievement that belies the $13,000 budget, and good performances by all in the small cast. But you know critics. These guys will read metaphorical meaning into things whether or not they merit it. The criticism of movies is very often arcane, pompous and serious - not to mention pretentious - than the movies themselves. After seeing the movie (I was with Erickson and associate producer David Lane Smith), I told them, gee, that really is funny, and that a lot of people could probably relate to the plight of a kid whose father has fed him some improbable tale in hopes of controlling his behavior. "I mean, I sort of had a Mr. Pumpkin when I was a kid," I continued. "It was (and here I won't name names, but I specified the religious upbringing I had received )" They looked at me as if I had sprouted another head. "You know," I continued, sensing their puzzlement, "I think a lot of kids have their own boogeyman," and droned on about how parents, teachers and even religious dogma are responsible for putting fears into kids' heads. I thought that Mr. Pumpkin had illustrated the point beautifully and with a great deal of humor. They seemed surprised by all this, but I'd wager that on some level, conscious or otherwise, that was the intended message. In any case, Mr. Pumpkin is a winner, and in June the movie goes to New York as a finalist in the short-film category at the American Film Festival (not to be confused with the New York Film Festival each fall). Back to Short Films | ||
