I discovered Robert Downey Sr. fairly recently, given that, in all modesty, I consider myself rather well versed in cinema. I don't know what I expected, but certainly it wasn't what I got. Without question, this is the appeal of Robert Downey's work: its absolute unpredictability, its complete absurdity. He is not a genius of the cinema, but he's clever as can be, he's unrelenting in his satire, and he's highly original.

This quality — originality, uniqueness; call it what you like — means a great deal to me. I've seen so much cinema, from the late 1800s to the present, from America to Japan and everything in between, that I very rarely stumble across something that is a truly novel viewing experience. The three amateur films that began his career as a filmmaker — "Babo 73", "Chafed Elbows", and "No More Excuses" — were the first experiences I had with Downey, and I was pretty instantly enamored with him. The films aren't masterpieces. In fact, they're far from it. They're filled with flaws and shortcomings, but also with moments of fantastic off-the-wall humor and scathing satire. More than anything, they're almost completely unique. I was reminded very slightly of a few of Godard's films with the Dziga Vertov Group from the early '70s, like "Wind From the East" and "Vladimir and Rosa", and a bit more of Scorsese's early short films, but otherwise I can't really recall any films that came to mind as being similar to these remarkable bundles of absurdist energy.

I next saw "Putney Swope", Downey's first professional film, if I'm not mistaken. It was very similar to its predecessors, only much more polished and professionally executed. Two films later, in 1972, Downey came out with "Greaser's Palace".

The first thing I noted about this film was the change to color. Aside from that, however, the cinematography is very similar to "Putney Swope", utilizing a realist style with hand-held camera-work and so forth. Downey's basic sense of humor is present, but on the whole, "Greaser's Palace" is a very different film from the other four Downey films I've seen. It's much more toned down, and the general mood of the film diverges significantly from what we're used to. Downey deviates somewhat from his usual absurdist farce and buffoonery (although he definitely doesn't dispense with it entirely), replacing it instead with something more quiet and understated, by comparison to his other films, that is. For the first time in any of his films that I've seen, there are moments in "Greaser's Palace" that actually appear to be intended to be taken seriously, at least to some extent. The final shot of the film is absolutely stunning, both beautiful and disturbing on a visceral level. It's truly a very strange film, and while it doesn't all together work, it has its moments.

"Greaser's Palace" is an allegorical film, a parable of the life of Christ. Downey clearly doesn't subscribe to any specific political beliefs or ideologies, and has said so himself. These aren't left-wing films with a social message; they're just raw satire for its own sake. When all is said and done, the primary function of Downey's films is to be enjoyed. It's comedy for comedy's sake. If, however, there was ever a Robert Downey film that felt like it was intended to mean something, this is that film. Religious satire has always been present in Downey's films, but until now it had always been overwhelmed by the much more dominant political satire in his films. In "Greaser's Palace", though, the religious satire is the core of the film. The allegory is extremely thinly veiled, comically so, and Downey pulls no punches.

For instance, I recall three figures standing together in a field near the end of the film. One is a younger man who refers to the older man next to him as his father. The third figure is a man covered in a white sheet, with two holes cut out where the eyes might be. These three not-so-mysterious figures are, of course, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is Downey's idea of humor. Whether it's funny or not will depend very much on the viewer. While the symbolism and metaphor are far from brilliant, I've found that there is more than enough humor to be found in his irreverence alone. His blatant lack of respect for religion and politics, I believe, has worked to wonderful comedic effect in his films.

I thought "Greaser's Palace" was a mess for the bulk of the viewing, and it probably is the worst of the five films I've seen by Downey — certainly the most flawed — but in its own way it may also be the most interesting. The usual frenetic pace of Downey's comedy is melted into something closer to deadpan humor at times, and by the end of the film I must say that I was vaguely interested. I haven't made a great deal of effort to interpret the symbolism and the allegory, and the specifics of what exactly Downey was trying to say, because ultimately I feel like I'd be left with what I already know: Downey never really tries to say much of anything. He simply makes fun of everything. And here he takes great pleasure in ridiculing religion on every imaginable level.

Is "Greaser's Palace" a good film? I don't think so. But it's interesting, at least in part, and while I think it fails on the whole, I won't say that I wasn't engaged by it for certain moments, particularly towards the end of the film. I found that it had much more impact on me than I could logically or rationally account for. Give it a shot, and see what you think. A film this original and unique earns some respect on those merits alone.

RATING: 5.67 out of 10 stars