I am not a child of the 70s.
I say this because it seems to be one of the main reasons I do not share the same reverence for the odd spectacle productions of that decade like 'Tommy' or 'The Man Who Fell to Earth.' I was going to throw 'Heavy Metal' in there, which is certainly a product of the 70s, even though it came out in 1981.
Which is also the year that this sort-of sequel to 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' came out. Now, as much as I thoroughly enjoy 'Rocky Horrror' (with and without the crowd participation), I can buy into many of the criticisms of that film. They pitched the tone a bit too seriously, the pacing is erratic, and the movie never really communicates the same idea that the stage show originally did.
But 'Shock Treatment' is something completely different, and it struggles to be taken on its own terms. The All Movie guide says it is "hesitantly embraced" by 'Rocky Horror' fans, but that rings as a prespective of someone on the outside observing the freaks. There are 'Rocky Horror' fans who have tried to put the same audience participation template on 'Shock Treatment,' and while those results are mixed and lack a certain spontaneity, they do not represent or spoil the merits of the film.
'Shock Treatment' follows married Brad and Janet Majors as they reulctantly become pawns in the mechanizations of a fast food magnate named Farley Flavors who lords over his world of DTV - Denton Television. The film immediately contextualizes small town America in a television studio where dramas play out on various television series. I suppose this device would cause many people to tune out immediately, but if you accept the surreal setting the film has many odd charms and fun moments.
This is why I bring up films like 'Tommy' (and hell, let's also take 'The Wall' even though it came out a year after this film). I suppose the pedigree of being based on "important" rock music can carry a disconnected, overly pretentious, bizarre barrage of images and help it to be considered a classic. Why can't something just as surreal but with a more DIY bent be considered entertaining or worthy as well?
'Shock Treatment' is not deep, but it presages America's obsession with reality television, advertising overload and (particularly) the media's ability to lead people into making judgements on our fellow citizens based on rumor and conjecture.
But this is a musical, and judged soley on that basis, the songs are bright, clever and catchy. Richard O'Brien and Richard Hartley outdid themselves and created songs that work even better than the ones in 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show.' The songs cut a wide swath through the music of the time, encompassing classic show tune styles, brassy soul, disco (just a little) and even punk. But somehow, the score is coherent, and less of a rambling pastiche of styles than its predecessor.
Cliff de Young and Jessica Harper easily outshine Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon (the Brad and Janet of 'Rocky Horror'), not because of overall talent, but because they are appropriate for this film's incarnation of the roles (not to mention De Young and Harper sing their asses off). We don't get a lot of fancy musical choreography, but a couple of sequences are interestingly staged, cognizant of the camera and the conventions of editing.
Which brings up another point. 'Rocky Horror' worked hard but couldn't quite shake the feeling of being adapted from a stage play. On the other hand, 'Shock Treatment' was a film from the beginning and even though the settings are limited inside a giant television studio, the film makes the most of space and time (and fantasy), never feeling tied to one or two locations.
If you are ever in a forgiving mood and want to challenge your thoughts on this film, I encourage you to check it out again fresh. I'll be surprised if you don't find yourself singing,"Ooooh, shock treatment!" afterwards.