Spanking the Monkey (1994) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

When he was a precocious young man, film director David O. Russell spent one particularly unpleasant summer trapped at home, his activities restricted by the physical demands of caring for his bed-ridden mother after she got into an auto accident. His father, a publishing executive for Simon and Shuster, was away on business most of the time, leaving David to do the yeoman's work at home. It was the summer from hell. Russell's mother was, according to many (including Russell), a smart woman who gave up her own career plans to be an upper middle class housewife and mother, and eventually developed a severe drinking problem. Without enough to occupy her time, she not only drank excessively, but used her unfilled time to dote on and manipulate her only son. She also pushed him hard and berated him frequently, even slipping occasionally into physical abuse.

Spanking the Monkey is writer/director Russell's revenge for that summer. The basic components of the fictional story are similar to the events of that year, but include many melodramatic embellishments. Ray, the character who represents Russell, is a high school valedictorian who has just completed his first year at MIT and has done so well that he's been granted a prestigious summer internship with the U.S. Surgeon General's Office. It was to be the summer of his life, and was spoiled because of his mom's broken leg and his father's life as a road warrior. Life in the house is hell. He is unable to get any real time for himself because of his mother's lack of locomotion and her desire to control him. He has to carry her to the toilet and the shower and to assist her with other intimate processes. Even his attempts at masturbating (spanking the monkey) fail because of a whiny family dog who can't bear to be locked out of the bathroom.

There is one very significant place where Spanking the Monkey (presumably) varies from the real story. It portrays a different kind of physical abuse - not beating, but sexual manipulation. Ray's mom eventually maneuvers him into a sexual encounter, and the frustrated son allows the incident to happen.

Talk about family fun! How did Disney pass on this?

Russell wrote this as a spec script, supposedly in a seven day frenzy of output, and finally cut a tentative deal with New Line, which offered him a million dollars to make the film if he could offset the taboo subject matter by getting a major star to agree to act in it. Russell flew out to Hollywood in search of Faye Dunaway, but was summarily rejected. "She laughed in his face," said Russell's ex-wife, Janet Grillo. Even though Grillo worked at New Line, that studio's offer was dropped when Russell could not convince Dunaway or any other name player to appear in the film. Russell then had to put it all together as an indie film. He raised $80,000 initially, half of it from selling $1,000 shares to friends and family, with the other half coming from a couple of film grants. Unfortunately, that only got him halfway through the script, and he then had to turn to a film completion fund to get the job done. He saved money by housing the crew for free, a deal which he obtained by agreeing to make a promotional video for the participating motel.

The filmmaking story has a happy ending. The film won the audience award at Sundance, and New Line bought it. They only paid a lowball $250,000, but that was enough for Russell to recoup his costs, repay his investors, and show the world what he was capable of. Russell would soon go on to some substantial success as the writer/director of the critically-praised Three Kings (93% positive reviews). New Line also ended up satisfied with the Spanking the Monkey deal because the film took in $1.4 million at the box office.

(The stories and quotes above come from pages 48-53 of Sharon Waxman's Rebels on the Backlot, a study of Hollywood in the 1990's. The book is linked below. )

Whether you approve of the subject matter or not, you will concede that Spanking the Monkey is a very impressive effort for $200,000. It looks and feels like a much bigger film. The cinematography and editing are competent, the pacing is excellent, and the two major roles are delivered by solid actors (Alberta Watson and Jeremy Davies). The great weakness of the film, as I see it, is not in the controversial subject matter but in the fact that the treatment hovers in limbo between comedy and tragedy. The Rolling Stone quote on the DVD box says, "shockingly funny," but that comment seems to come out of fantasyland, or perhaps it is spin required by a societal code that will not allow mother/son incest to be considered anything but black comedy. In reality, the incest is handled believably, in such a way as to involve the audience in the increasing sexual tension, to share the POV which led to the encounter, and to understand the incident. There is nothing funny about the sexuality between the two characters and Spanking the Monkey is not a funny movie in general, although it is not without wit. Nor does the film ridicule the incestuous partners. On the other hand, it is not quite a realistic character study either. Take, for example, the character of the father. He is exaggerated to the point where his rules and his self-pitying martyrdom and his philandering are a wild caricature of people we may know - but he is not exaggerated sufficiently to be funny, and he's not distorted enough to be surreal. He's just a lot more irritating than your dad or some dad you know who is like him but not quite as bad. He's an archetype, but not a comic stereotype. Not funny.

Russell is one of those smart, introverted, aloof filmmakers who are beloved by critics, but don't generally generate enough warmth to elicit much love from mainstream moviegoers. Critics considered him one of the best filmmakers of the 1990s, but his IMDb scores are in the "OK, not brilliant" range. I'm not sure whether the critics have the best overall perspective, but it does seem to me that Three Kings is probably underrated at IMDb. A film with 93% positive reviews and $60 million at the box office should be Top 250 material, and it is not even close.


IMDb score % positive reviews Budget (M) Box Office (M)
Spanking the Monkey (1994) 6.5 89 $.2 $1
Flirting with Disaster (1996) 7.0 86 $7 $15
Three Kings (1999) 7.3 93 $48 $60
I Heart Huckabees (2004) 7.0 60 $22 $12

I don't know if I'm the only one left who still pictures David O. Russell as a wunderkind who will soon enter the adult phase of his directorial career, but that is certainly a misapprehension. He is approaching 50 (he's 47 years old). If he is going to make it to the cinema pantheon, he had better hurry up because he's not getting any younger, and his last film was considered a major step downward from his previous one, despite the fact that five prime years of his life seemed to disappear between the two films.



  • Widescreen transfer, anamorphically enhanced (16x9)
  • Full-length commentary by director Russell



  • Alberta Watson shows her breasts in a shower scene.
  • Liberty Jean shows the full monty as one of dad's lovers.

Tuna's notes in yellow

Spanking the Monkey is the first full-length film from David O. Russell (I Heart Huckabees, Three Kings, Flirting With Disaster). It was made for a mere 80K using film stock ends his wife somehow appropriated., The crew was unpaid, agreeing to a percentage of any profits. The crew's lodging for the 25 days of shooting was also free because the convention center hotel agreed to house the cast and crew in exchange for a documentary about their facility. It cost another 100K to finish the film after principal photography was in the can. They managed to sell it at Sundance, and it did $1.4M in distribution.

The studio chose to market it as a dark comedy, and the marketers are still claiming that on the DVD packaging. IMDb also lists it that way. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a comedy. It is an incest drama. Raymond Aibelli (Jeremy Davies) has finished his first year of college, and appears to be heading to medical school. On his way to a prestigious summer internship with the Surgeon General's Office, he stops to visit his family. Dad is a traveling salesman who is never home, but constantly browbeats him, either in person, or on the phone. He drops the bombshell that mom has broken her leg and is clinically depressed, and that Ray will have to blow off his summer internship and take care of his mother, because dad is off on a marathon sales trip.

The home atmosphere is unbearable, because mom (Alberta Watson) is a smothering, castrating mother. Davies can't even "spank the monkey" in the privacy of the bathroom because the family dog badgers him. The only half-way bright spot in Davies' life is meeting a high school junior who has a crush on him. That developing relationship doesn't go well either. All of this leads to the mother/son incest scene. The act was horrific enough, but it was really the oppression Davies' was forced to live under that made the film so dark.

Russell justifiably feels like he created a very good film given budget and time constraints, but admits that he no longer wants to make dark films, and doesn't even enjoy watching this one. A talented cast and crew under good direction made a rather polished and very effective film here. The question is, who would want to see it?

The Critics Vote ...

  • James Berardinelli 3 stars (/4)

  • It won the Sundance audience award and two Independent Spirit awards.

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, it's a C+ (both reviewers). Tuna says, "I would say I admired it more than liked it, but if the subject matter and mood interest you, by all means see it."

Return to the Movie House home page