archived comments

ARCHIVED COMMENTS FOR IN MEMORIAM

2009-05-22T12:00:00.001-04:00

Thanks for sharing that, Greg.
bill | | Email | 05.26.08 - 9:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Greg.
Sheila | | Email | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 10:17 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you both for commenting. Had I access to my parents attic on short notice (they're ten hours away) I would've put his picture up in full uniform. He cut an impressive figure.
Greg F | | Email | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 11:05 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for sharing this. It brought tears to my eyes and reminded me of how my father and his brothers tell and retell the same stories about their father's service during WWII.
Marisa | | Email | Homepage | 05.27.08 - 3:40 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Marisa, I admit, I get choked up every time I think about that visit to the memorial. And the stories are always reassuring, somehow moreso because we've heard them before.
Greg F | | Email | Homepage | 05.27.08 - 4:49 pm | #

Archived Comments for Clockwork Orange Post

2008-12-16T16:31:00.000-05:00

Briefly, I think the movie's more than "a satire of state control over the individual's free will". Firstly, I don't think Kubrick cares much for the notion of free will - in fact, free will itself might be his clockwork orange (a much grander indictment than youth or the state as clockwork orange, and a clue as to why he may find Burgess' last chapter optimistic). Secondly, the movie is a satire, yes, but if I'm getting you right, you're arguing that Kubrick is mocking the state; in my view, he's laughing at the whole shebang, from Alex to Mr. Alexander (interesting that they share the same name - is it the same in the book?), to youth, conformity, hipsters, priests, policemen, etc... all come under Kubrick's withering gaze. Isn't it the same in most of his movies? In fact, it's almost impossible to get a sense of what Kubrick *does* believe in, which is why he's considered one of cinema's great misanthropes.toshi yano Email Homepage 02.09.08 - 1:23 am #

You're just baiting a comment from me, aren't you?As it happens, A Clockwork Orange is my "official" favorite movies. Admittedly, largely a leftover from a time when I did things like decide on what my favorite movie is. It's doubtful if I started a list of my favorite movies now without recollection of the old one, that I'd select this now, but then I've never felt like anything I've seen quite unseats it either.I'm less pleased with the last chapter than others. I agree with you (and with Burgess) in regards to what the 21st Chapter is attempting to do, but I find it to be lacking the full texture to make it a cohesive part of the novel. It always feels to me like an epilogue, handily wrapping up a thematic loose end rather than another chapter extending the story organically.Again, I know what you (and Burgess) are talking about. I think that there's real wisdom in the idea he's conveying in that chapter and I understand why it feels missing from the movie to others familiar with it. But, I can't quite convince myself that it works as well as others imagine it does.Neil Email Homepage 02.09.08 - 1:46 am #

Toshi - Yes the name's the same in the book and no I'm not arguing that Kubrick is just mocking the state but that he is satirizing all of contemporary society. And I think it works very well. I always worry that if I split down the middle as I did here people will miss it (and I'm not saying you did) but I couldn't pick one over the other as I think both film and book succeeded admirably. It's just that I like the book's 21st Chapter and since it is unfamiliar to many decided to spend most of the time discussing that.By the way Toshi I visited your blog - nice work. I've added it to my blogroll.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.09.08 - 9:59 am #

Neil - There's nothing like baiting you - but I wasn't I promise. As I said to Toshi I think both work. I prefer the book ending with Chapter 21 instead of 20 and yes, it does feel like an epilogue but in this case, that's what I like about it. And since I love Barry Lyndon so much with it's extended epiloguesque ending I can imagine Kubrick ending this the same way. As it is, the 20th Chapter ending certainly has more immediate punch to it than ending with a musing Alex and Lyndon could have ended with the duel but I don't think it would have been as powerful, although it certainly would have had a more immediate shocking impact.And again, I think the film does an excellent job. In this case, unlike when I did The Shining I just prefer the book ending to the movie and American published ending.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.09.08 - 10:06 am #

Nice comparison of the book to the film Jonathan. I think you're right on the money by pointing out the differences between Kubrick's film and Burgess' book. And I didn't think you were really calling one or the other superior.I personally think the book and film's endings are equally "optimistic," (Note: That word doesn't come to mind when I think about A Clockwork Orange) and I don't think they differ much at all.Some might say that Kubrick sort of sidestepped Alex's personal responsibility and laid the full blame for Alex's actions at the feet of his peers, where Burgess might have wanted his readers to consider their own culpability more. But in the end I find it's sort of like watching a dog chase his tail or the old "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" argument. At least to me anyway, even if Burgess didn't see it that way.I think both the film and the original book both hold up as equally brilliant and important pieces of work from two different artists and that's more then I can say for most adaptations.Kimberly Email Homepage 02.09.08 - 4:37 pm #

"...where Burgess might have wanted his readers to consider their own culpability more.I think that sums up in large part what Burgess intended with the ending. And I guess you can use the word "optimistic" for both because in both the individual either conquers (film) or grows and reflects (book). I think the film is more optimistic ending the story where it does whereas the book giving us Alex's realization that no matter what he does with his son and his son does with his and on and on it won't change anything is a bit more defeatist. That's why I was surprised by Kubrick's reading of it. But then many people reading this comment thread would probably think we're all crazy for calling any of this story optimistic in the first place.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.09.08 - 5:30 pm #

The 21st chapter of the book really bugs me. People who rape and terrorize in their teenage years don't simply grow out of that behavior. If they change, it's because they did serious prison time, had counseling while there, that sort of thing. I don't think Burgess (who I'm a fan of) is really interested in criminality and violent behavior. If he was, the 21st chapter wouldn't exist as it does.bill Email 02.10.08 - 9:08 am #

When I was discussing this with someone before I posted it I conjectured that it was all highly exaggerated to make his points throughout the novel. Just as in Network I don't believe television executives would go from selling themselves out in the interest of higher ratings to contract killings in a matter of a couple of months. But I accept it as satire and I accept the 21st chapter here. As satire, he is careful to make Alex the most intellectually curious and the one with the broadest cultural horizons. As such, while I can imagine Dim and Georgie (especially Dim) being brutal for the sake of being brutal, I can also imagine within the context and confines of Burgess' story, Alex doing it out of boredom and thus becoming disillusioned with it at a later age. My main problem, context or not, is that I believe Burgess would have done better by himself to have Chapter 21 take place a few years later than it did when Alex was, say, 24 or 25. Then it might be more acceptable to readers with the same beef you have to more readily accept it as a result of age. I do accept it as that but only because I basically ignore when it's happening and imagine it's happening ten years later. Which is a cop-out on my part probably. Had I adapted the book to the screen and included the 21st chapter, that is a change I would have made. I would have had the epilogue occur much later.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.10.08 - 10:02 am #

But Burgess's argument about why he wrote the 21st chapter is because he says that it wouldn't be a novel if the main character didn't change. Without the 21st chapter, he believes "A Clockwork Orange" only functions as a fable. First off, I don't see what's so bad about fables, and second, making Alex change to fulfill his definition of a novel seems awfully arbitrary to me.bill Email 02.10.08 - 11:10 am #

Also, Alex is a sadist. The extra three or four years you would give him wouldn't make the difference for me.bill Email 02.10.08 - 11:19 am #

Well there you have it. I can't argue this because it's a matter of what one accepts or doesn't. I believe Dim is a sadist, while Alex is a bored teenager using violence as a means of control over his world. So I don't see the end as a stretch.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.10.08 - 12:09 pm #

Well, if you can't argue it, then I can't argue back. Good day to you!bill Email 02.10.08 - 12:47 pm #

Come back on Monday - I've decided to make that 2 arguments for the price of 1 day. I shall be arguing that: 1) By speeding up the sex scene with the two girls from the record store he dimished the power of the same scene in the novel where the girls enjoy it while drunk but then feel Alex is taking it too far.and 2) Darth Vader looks like a dork in real life.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.10.08 - 1:43 pm #

You know, I'm not feeling particularly energetic today, or as full of the kind of Deep Thoughts you've come to expect from me, which is a shame because "A Clockwork Orange" is a movie I have very mixed feelings about. I think it's "great" and everything, but the sped-up sex scene is actually kind of terrible, both in its humor and for the reason you just pointed out. Upping the age of so many of Alex's victims is to the film's detriment.But Kubrick was right about the ending.bill Email 02.10.08 - 2:26 pm #

Well, we've got a part of the movie we agree on. As I said in my comment above I think the jokey nature of the scene in the movie strips it of its power. I've often wondered if it had something to do with the new freedom given directors by the ratings system where they felt they could now "make a joke" out of a sex scene and look edgy. I wonder that because when I was listening to the commentary by Mike Nichols and Steven Soderbergh on my DVD of Catch 22 a couple of years ago I was pleasantly surprised to find Nichols so forthcoming about what he had done wrong in the film. Much of it had to do with sex jokes and he stated that it was for the reason I cited above that some of them were done but now he felt embarrassed by their immaturity. In particular he hated that when Yossarian is watching the beautiful Italian woman approaching he used the 2001 Strauss riff. He thought it was clever at the time but now felt it was extremely dated. I have a feeling Kubrick may have felt the same way about that scene years later but I have no proof.And Burgess was right about the ending.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.10.08 - 2:58 pm #

That commentary track on "Catch-22" is fantastic, one of the best I've heard. I love the story about John Wayne.It is my naive belief that Kubrick would be above the sort of thing you describe. I just can't picture him being that shallow; then again, there's the scene, right there in "A Clockwork Orange", and it's the shallowest scene of his entire career.I'm right about everything. You're wrong about everything.bill Email 02.10.08 - 4:36 pm #

I liked the commentary more than the movie. And I never knew that the Italian traffic cop was Buck Henry, at least the second shot of the cop when he stops Yosarrian. I also like the Orson Welles' stories.Oh yeah, and I almost forgot... damn near slipped my mind...You're wrong.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.10.08 - 7:42 pm #

I was gonna drop a line to say I was impressed by this piece, Jonathan, but it looks like you've already had your car waxed enough today, so...Ed Hardy, Jr. Email Homepage 02.11.08 - 12:38 am #

But my balls haven't been washed. Although Bill, as usual, handled the job of chapping my ass.Jonathan: The sky is blue.Bill: I disagree, it's really more of an absence of red.Ed, I hope you enjoyed my Something about Mary comment - I wasn't trying to say you're an insane hitchhiker you understand. Someday we'll have to enact the scene out on stage at some kind of Annual Blogger's Revue. They do have those right?Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.11.08 - 7:52 am #

Oh, sure, give me the illogical, contradictory-for-the-sake-of-being-contradictory side of the argument.bill Email 02.11.08 - 8:59 am #

Actually, I think it makes you look like more of a philosopher, someone who doesn't go for the easy "this is this" Deer Hunter kind of an answer.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.11.08 - 9:10 am #

Hmm...yes, I AM something of a philosopher, aren't I? The next time someone disagrees with me, I'm going to say, "Don't argue with me. I'm a philosopher. That'll shut 'em up.bill Email 02.11.08 - 9:15 am #

Or just put a single bullet in a gun, spin the chambers and hold it to their head shouting "This is this!" I bet that'd shut 'em up too.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.11.08 - 9:21 am #

Jonathan: I actually laughed my ass off, and then went, "Wait, what is that from?" It took me a good twenty minutes of wandering around saying "you know, from the SEA," before the whole scene suddenly popped into my head. I haven't seen that movie in years!Ed Hardy, Jr. Email Homepage 02.11.08 - 10:49 am #

I'm glad you liked it. I thought for a second, "I hope he doesn't think I'm belittling what he does or anything," but for some reason "seven minute abs" popped into my head while reading the last one you did and I couldn't resist.Jonathan Lapper Email Homepage 02.11.08 - 11:15 am #

Archived Comments for There's Only You and Me and We Just Disagree

2008-11-29T17:20:00.001-05:00

Beautiful insightful post, Jonathan. Thank you.

I often think that that whole "missed opportunity" thing (ie: Raft turning down these key roles) is just another word for being too stupid to know what's good for you. I've seen it time and time again with actors I know ... the ones who say "yes" to every opportunity - who are generous not only with themselves but with other actors - are often the ones who go furthest. It's not that people can't have quirks and problems and insecurities ... it's that someone like Bogart (at least in the anecdote you provide) knew when to cave to the Alpha Dog - for the good of the movie - and Raft (from all the stories I've heard) did NOT have that sensibility. He had too much to prove and protect. Nothing against Raft but I truly believe in "kismet", I guess you'd call it ... and that Bogart had the spirit and the wherewithal to fully embody these parts and make them mythic - and I think that makes him unique. I don't think "oh, if Raft had played those parts HE would be famous and not Bogart ..." Nope. I've heard too many bitter unsuccessful actors say stuff like that in order to boost their own egos!!

I once got a friend a job in a show I was doing. It was a great part and he was perfect for it. He was such an unbelievable pissy prima donna nightmare that he has never worked again. And I will NEVER recommend him for a part again.

That stuff really does matter!!

Sorry to go on and on like that. Basically it's a long way of saying I loved your post.
Sheila | | Email | Homepage | 07.15.08 - 12:30 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Sheila! I agree wholeheartedly. Except for Raft, I haven't read of other actors disliking Bogart or Robinson or the many other actors Raft had a problem with. And Raft himself has many a researchable quote about how Bogart should thank him for his career. Baloney. I saw Bogart in The Petrified Forest and Dead End in 1936 and 1937 and he clearly has a charm and charisma that bleeds through. Without those later roles that were supposedly Raft's he still would've been a star, it just would have been with different movies. And Leslie Howard loved working with Bogart and Howard himself was known to be a bit of a stuffed shirt on sets at times, so there Raft!

I have a similar type story only it's a director instead of an actor. When I was at CUA there was a director there named Ken ****. Anyway, he cast me early on in his time there in the MFA Directors Program in Picnic. It was tough going from start to finish as he kept "showing" me what I should be doing and was never satisfied with what I did. After that he did another play that someone had to back out on and the cast members recommended me. They told me that he said, "No way! I'm not working with **** ever again!" At first I thought, "Oh my god, am I one of those problem actors?" Then with each successive play Ken had an entirely different cast until he had run through the entire acting branch of the school and for his last play (an awful play about a college break that I can't remember the title of now) he literally cast two tech students in the leads because NO ONE auditioned because we all knew that with Ken as a director, everything the actor did was wrong. After only two years, no one wanted to work with him, and I was still being cast so my fears had long since dissipated.

My tech friend Andy, who was cast in that final play, and did as best a job as he could God bless him, described Ken the best. He said the reason Ken was never satisfied with actors was because he was an awful communicator who could never get his ideas across to the actor. When the actor became frustrated Ken assumed they were being beligerent or obtuse and the tension would start to mount. Then Andy provided the perfect example of this. He said he knew there were going to be problems when one of the first confusions over what to do arose. Ken gave Andy the direction, "I want you to walk towards me but move to the back of the stage." Huh? So Andy tried making a forward kind of a motion with his body while moving backwards and Ken said, "No, no all wrong - towards me!" So Andy went towards him and got "No, no towards me but moving back!" Finally, there was the inevitable "just fucking show me what you want" to which Ken got on stage and did his thing to which Andy said, "that's the first one I did." Ken disagreed and it was downhill from there.

Same thing with Picnic. My god, he obsessed over how I was coming onto the stage - "Run but don't look like you're running!" - until he finally did it and it looked no different than what I had been doing. When told this he disagreed and well you know the rest.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.15.08 - 8:32 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This behavior is not limited to acting, but it seems to get the most notice in the arts and sports (where some very talented players, such as ones named Marbury and Bonds, have a habit of burning through teammates quicker than an arsonist through matches). With respect to Robinson, someone I had a lot of respect for, Charlton Heston, had nothing but superlatives to say about the man. He even made sure to get Robinson his last role in Soylent Green, knowing that Robinson was terminally ill and his premature death could doom the project.

In my own life, when I was coming up as a young attorney, I worked for an attorney who was an absolute expert on securities law. Joe had plenty of clients, but had burned through some of the top law firms in NYC, not to mention countless associates and secretaries. Within a year of going to work for him, I knew why. He was nasty, insufferable and ill tempered. When I left the firm, he didn't say goodbye, so I left him a pamphlet on anger management on his chair. I never found out if he read it or not, but for his own sake and that of his family, I hope he did, but I doubt it.

By the way, nice reference to Dave Mason.
Fred | | Email | 07.15.08 - 3:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fred - I'd have to bet in favor of him not reading it. I've known a couple of people like that and unless they are absolutely and indispensably at the top of their field, eventually it all comes crashing down for them.

And also, Steve McQueen, who worked with him on The Cincinatti Kid, had nothing but nice things to say about Robinson, who from what I've gathered, seemed like an all around good guy.

Unfortunately with sports attitude rarely gets you sidelined. Unlike movies where directors and actors stop ringing your doorbell, in sports, if you've got the talent and the records, you've got a job. And sometimes that really annoys the hell out of me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.15.08 - 5:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had an actor (in fact, my roommate at the time) go overboard in a scene with me once, get too physical, too rough, and I overreacted and delivered a round house punch to his head, full force, closed fist. If he had been a smaller man, I might easily have killed him but because he was built like an ox the blow didn't even seen to faze him. Twenty-some-odd years later and I'm embarrassed by my heated response but at the time it seemed like the right thing to do. As David Mamet once put it, "Go understand actors."
Arbogast on His Ass | | Email | 07.15.08 - 6:26 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've had actors I felt like punching. When I was doing "Nineteen Eighty Four" years ago, a pretty shabby adaptation of the book, and I played O'Brien and, you know, had to slap the actor playing Winston in the interrogation scenes. Well, he sucked and sucked bad. I really have no idea how he was cast unless he was really good at oral sex or something. Anyway, because it's so much harder to play off of a corpse than a fine actor I'd be mad at him by the end of each performance and slap the living hell out of his face to get out my aggressions. Of course, he just said things like "that was pretty hard tonight, I think you're getting lost in the moment." Yeah, he was pretty dense too.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.15.08 - 6:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would imagine Raft hated Bogart even more after High Sierra since that film pretty much catapulted him into mega-stardom. And wasn't it just a year before when Raft was top billing above Bogart in They Drive By Night?

I love all those guys.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 12:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well that's the thing. Raft turned down good roles then got mad when others turned them into successes. According to the IMDB trivia, the only reason Edward G. Robinson was in "Manpower" was because it was supposed to be Bogart and Raft refused to work with him.

Also, as stated in the Wikipedia entry and in any film bio of him, are the reasons he'd turn down roles: High Sierra - didn't want to die in the end. The Maltese Falcon - Refused to work with a rookie director. Those reasons say something about him and it's not entirely flattering.

There is an amusing story on the Wikipedia entry in which Tallulah Bankhead accused him of giving her gonorrhea.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 12:29 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weird... this must have been only when he was in the lead role, yes? I mean... um, Scarface?

That kinda bums me out about Raft. I always assumed he was a pleasant man simply based on the fact that I liked his mug.

On your Wiki tip:

"In 1933, Bankhead nearly died following a five-hour emergency hysterectomy for an advanced case of gonorrhea, which she claimed she contracted either from George Raft or Gary Cooper. Only 70lbs when she left the hospital, she stoically said to her doctor, "Don't think this has taught me a lesson!"

Old movie stars were the coolest!

Perhaps Nicole Kidman (aka Marilyn) can fill us in on if modern Hollywood still operates like this.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 12:54 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't Raft was a bad guy just that by the time he achieved stardom I think he let ego dictate role choices more than good judgment and became resentful of others rather than looking at himself. And that doesn't make him a bad guy but as Sheila said, he had a chip on his shoulder that made him come off as difficult.

And since your Nicole's Svengali (alas, Wikipedia has finally removed the edit) you could probably get the info out of her more easily than I. Or is it me? Wait a minute, what were we talking about?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 1:59 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well... yes, I was very close with Nicki before she fell for that neo-country superstar Keith Urban. When they hooked up she went all uber-nationalist and fired everyone that wasn't from down under.

It's typical of her people to erase me from Wiki. More than anything, it just hurts... you know?

You know... with my stories on Nicki and your stories on Stan, we could wrote a couple of tell all books.

A tease: I have many awkward stories from the sets of To Die For and Birth.

And just let me say that, uh hum... the character of hers in Margot at the Wedding??? Yeah, um, she's not acting.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 2:30 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll contact some publishers today, see what I can get going.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 2:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Awwwwwww.... I love that new banner!!! Creepy and sad, just like the movie.

Silent Running was one of the first movies I watched when I moved into my last apartment. The TV was on a box and the place was kinda bare and empty. It was fitting.

I can just watch that movie over and over. Have you seen Phase IV??? It's another of those weirdo sci-fi films that I can just kinda zone out too without ever deciding if I really like it or not.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.17.08 - 12:10 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it's one of those sci-fi I want to see then I forget about wanting to see it. But now there's Netflix so I can load it up now that I've been reminded again. Thanks for the reminder.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.17.08 - 8:22 am | #

Archived Comments for the Shining Post

2008-11-02T16:00:00.001-05:00

Nice post. "The Shining", along with "The Exorcist", is the gold standard of horror filmmaking, as far as I'm concerned. Those films are so formidable that I guess I shouldn't be surprised that no one these days seems to want to try to match them.

A couple things: King, who I like for the most part, has never been more wrong in his life than he was and continues to be about Kubrick's film. King said something to the effect that Kubrick has no idea how the horror genre works, and every frame of "The Shining" is proof of that. Excuse me?? I think as evidence he pointed to the scene where Jack approaches Wendy, after she's found out what he's been writing all this time. King apparently believes that scene doesn't work because, essentially, Kubrick didn't film it to be a jump scare. It's really dispiriting to a fan like me when one of horror's leading writers has such a narrow view of what the genre can do, and what works within it.

But I like the book more than you do. At least, I think I do. I haven't read it in many, many years, but I don't remember there being anything about the ghosts needing Jack to work on the boiler. When I say it's been many, many years since I've read it, I mean just that (I don't think I was even in my teenage years when I read it) so I'm probably wrong, in which case your point about that element of the book is a good one. I just don't remember that.

Finally (for now) you wrote this:

"When the protagonist walks up to an outwardly beautiful woman who is inwardly cold and hateful, the writer can tell us, 'As he walked up to her all he could see was a miserable, wretched woman, not the beautiful face she showed the rest of the world.'"

Yes, the writer CAN do that, but they really, really shouldn't. That's sort of the equivelant of having the guy in the film version of this scene say to the girl, "You're very pretty, but you are unhappy and mean." Both film and literature can do what you're saying film is better suited for.
bill | | Email | 12.28.07 - 11:22 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - Thanks for the great reply. In the book the ghosts have to remind Jack about the boiler as he deepens into madness so that their sanctuary will not be destroyed.

As for King, I completely agree that he has never quite "gotten" what Kubrick did with The Shining. When King had his "revenge" by writing his own version for the miniseries a few years ago I watched it and found it underwhelming to say the least. He followed his own book to the page (he was on a mission) so if you watch it you can see a lot of what I was talking about with the boiler.

A funny thing about the topiary animals. They went with a maze in Kubrick's version because supposedly they couldn't realisticly portray the topiary animals coming to life but in the mini-series they only show them moving for a brief glimpse at the very end anyway. Before that they simply show Jack (Stephen Weber - the guy from "Wings") staring at them, then turning away, then turning back and they are mysteriously closer or in different positions. So no special effects needed. I think Kubrick used the FX complaint as a way out because he found the idea stupid and wanted to go with the maze. I have to agree. How far can one take a haunting? The plants too?!? I mean, take away the hedge trimming that makes it look like an animal and it's a bush. So, the Overlook's bushes are haunted? Is the grass haunted too? Do the fir tree's pine combs hurl themselves at Wendy and Danny when they're not looking?

And as for the writing example, I agree, that's what a bad novel would do. It was a poor attempt to elaborate on the benefits of first-person or third-person omniscient where imagination is not required.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 12:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I watched some of King's mini-series, but I couldn't get through it. I thought it was just awful. King has no instincts when it comes to filming his stuff. I know he didn't direct the series, but he was the boss, and his own tastes in other people's adaptations can be pretty suspect, as well.

I have that series "Storm of the Century" (featuring Tim Daly, another "Wings" alum!) on DVD, but I haven't watched much of it. What I have seen isn't so hot; I hang on to it just so I can finally watch it, and then listen to King's commentary, which I'm betting is more entertaining than the actual show.

And you're right about the topiary animals. Even reading the book as a kid I didn't think that really worked, and my tastes in horror now favor, even more, pulling back on that sort of thing. The maze is far more ominous. "Indifferent" is a good word for it.

I have to wonder what King thinks about the fact that he's pretty much all alone in his opinion of Kubrick's film. He very reasonably used his experience and success with the horror genre to bolster his argument, but nobody agrees with him. Has he reconsidered? Does he think everyone else should just piss off? I'm curious.

Another thing, regarding what books or films can do that the other can't: without relying on actual narration, can a film pull off the whole "unreliable narrator" bit? There may be obvious examples of this in film, but I can't think how it could be done.

I like this book-to-film comparison idea, and I hope you do more soon. Are there any others you have immediate plans to tackle?
bill | | Email | 12.28.07 - 12:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - Storm of the Century, It, The Langoliers, The Tommyknockers - I've watched 'em all. As for Storm I had the same problem I've had with much of King's work: He sets up a mystical, almost philosophical premise then wraps it up with the mundane. With Storm we get Linoge repeating, "Give me what I want and I'll go away" without elaborating further. I'm intrigued as are the townspeople: What does he want, who is he, can he really make entire towns disappear? Then we find out the answer. He wants one of their kids. Oh boy. He can send entire towns into the netherworld but he can't knock up a woman?

Same with It. Who is this demonic clown, why does he terrorize these children, from where did he emerge? Then we find out. He's a big spider in a cave. Arrrrggghhhh!

Over and over King seems to paint himself into a corner. He has an inspired idea but can think of nothing but the absolutely ordinary with which to complete it.

As for "unreliable narrator" the very next book/film I want to do deals with that very thing, but I wouldn't want to ruin it by saying which. Only that in this case, I like the book much more although the film is very good (but it drops the unreliable narrator). Kevin Spacey's pretty unreliable in The Usual Suspects and Orson Welles even tells the viewer that he will be unreliable in F for Fake. The first time I saw it I completely bought the Picasso story. Maybe I'm just gullible.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 1:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I bought the Picasso story, too! What a great ending. "F for Fake" is hard to get into, though. I tried watching it again recently and I couldn't get interested, with all that hopping around. I know that's part of the point, but still...

As far as "It" goes, there's a spider in the book, too, but that's not what IT is. It's...a bunch of lights? I don't remember. The ending of the book is a bit of a letdown, too, but far more complicated.

Anyway, the problem you describe is exactly the problem I have with the vast majority of horror fiction, whatever the medium. That's why I like writers like Thomas Ligotti and Robert Aickman, writers who leave out a lot, and make the horror more insinuating. That's also why I don't really get tired of zombies, as long as they're handled well. Zombies just are. And they want to eat you.

Spacey is certainly unreliable in "The Unusual Suspects", but that's the twist. I'm talking about an unreliable narrator in the sense that the audience clues into something amiss with the guy telling the story well before the ending, and there isn't necessarily a big reveal to confirm this. It's set up by clues, things the narrator says, or the way he interprets something that played far differently to you, but the clues aren't paid off in any traditional way. The Gothic writer Patrick McGrath makes his living writing about these kinds of people.
bill | | Email | 12.28.07 - 2:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and I keep forgetting to mention that I like the "Talking Finger" in "The Shining". It strikes me as a very realistic, childlike way for this kid to try and deal with this thing in his head he doesn't understand.
bill | | Email | 12.28.07 - 2:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an interesting question, about the unreliable narrator in film. Maybe in film, it works only in the case where the camera is the narrator. For instance, something like Pan's Labyrinth. There's no twist to reveal whether or not everything happening to Ophelia is real or not. The Captain doesn't see the faun so maybe only she can see it or maybe it doesn't exist except for in her imagination. The walls of the labyrinth look like they open up for her but maybe she just imagined that too as she made her way to it's now familiar center for her.

Or maybe No Country for Old Men with it's story is an unreliable narrator. How does Chiguhr bounce about so much (always on the tail of Moss yet makes forays into Texas Office Buildings to kill Stephen Root, then finds his way to Moss in Mexico without the aid of the transponder)? For that matter, how does Harrellson find him? And judging from the virtual indestructability of Chiguhr and his ingenuity, how exactly does that deputy at the beginning of the movie arrest him in the first place? Maybe stories like these two films represent unreliable narrators in the movies.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 2:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

great post--i am fascinated by film adaptations from books & agree with you--i've got some similar posts here:

http://superfastreader.com/tag/f...ilm- adaptations
annie | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 2:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annie - Thanks for stopping by. I thoroughly agree on Last of the Mohicans. Michael Mann did a terrific job with it. As for the link on your page to other notable book to film adaptations I did not read through it for fear that I would then abandon any plans to write my own due to paranoia that I was not being original.

However I've visited your site on more than a few occassions thanks to links from Sheila and you do terrific work there.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 3:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and as for your take on the talking finger. I never really thought of it in that way before but that's a good way to look at it.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 4:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But "No Country for Old Men" isn't really trying to mislead you, which is what an unrealiable narrator does. "Pan's Labyrinth" is closer. I think there is ample evidence that the fantasy elements are actually there, but that kind of ambiguity is what I'm talking about, because that film is from Ophelia's point of view. Not every scene is, but most are, and ALL of the fantasy scenes are. If the fantasy wasn't real, we would only be seeing them because she imagined them, and she would have been unconciously misleading us (and herself, which is another thing unreliable narrators do a lot).
bill | | Email | 12.28.07 - 5:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point. I can take Pan's Labyrinth either way and I think it is to the film's credit that it can work either way.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 5:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

glad to find your blog (via sheila) & am subscribing--
annie | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 5:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Annie. Sheila's just terrific, isn't she?
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.28.07 - 6:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of these days I really will give that movie another chance. There are things I remember liking about it.

I completely agree with you about King's trouble steering himself toward endings that don't really work. It's definitely his weakest point. And yet somehow his ability to create characters nearly always causes me to forgive it. "It" being a prime example. I think that ending is worse even that you describe, and yet I'd not only describe it as among my favorite King books but my favorite books.
Neil | | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 3:07 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil, sorry to keep linking you to posts but lately I seem to be choosing topics where I remember a strongly voiced opinion from your blog on the topic.

As for IT I haven't read the book so I can't speak with authority there, I just know that I found the clown character (Tim Curry) frightening and intriguing throughout before the end ruined everything.
Greg Ferrara| | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 9:27 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great analysis! Especially concerning King's own cluelessness about what works in his stories.

I read lots of King in high school, but I have to say my taste in literature has grown a little too sophisticated for me to enjoy him anymore. A few years ago, I read the first 4 books of The Dark Tower series on a friend's recommendation. It was a good break from my grad school reading, but I gave up on the series when I realized King was making it up as he went along with no idea what it all meant or where it was all headed. Not that I'm against writing as an act of exploration, but you really have to have SOMETHING you're trying to say - you have to be doing more than filling up 7 books with random incidents.

FYI: Though I haven't read it myself, someone in a comments section somewhere pointed out that it's made clear in the book that Chigurh lets himself be taken at the beginning of NCFOM just to see if he can escape - he's testing himself. Apparently, he passes with flying colors....
W. Australopithecus | | Email | 12.29.07 - 4:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting post and happy holidays!

I usually only have problems with movie adaptations when the director clearly just didn't understand what the original book author was trying to do. It often just comes down to the director's abilities. Good directors like Kubrick, Cronenberg and DePalma have all made fine adaptations of King's work. Each director was somehow able to bring their own vision to King's original work and sometimes even improve on the material (Dead Zone comes to mind).

I think the same can be said for film remakes really. A good director like Cronenberg can remake something like The Fly and do a brilliant re-imaging of the material bringing an intelligence and deep understanding to his film. Then there's Neil LaBute's remake of The Wicker Man, which clearly shows he had no understanding of the original material at all. Someone needs to take away his movie-making abilities for that monstrosity.
Kimberly | | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 7:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg - I know it can be obnoxious when someone tells you YOU HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK - so I'll take that risk and say: You must read It. It's not just one of King's best books - but it's one of the best books I've read, period. It's not just about the monster. What it is about is friendship, and childhood connections ... how those bonds we form when we are young are sometimes more primal and more right than those when we are adults and suppposedly "know better".

Great great book.
Sheila | | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 8:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, don't take me as complaining about free links! And I'm always glad to hear the things I write resonate with people. That's just great.

Suffice it to say, in my humble opinion, the set-up for Pennywise is much, much more frightening and intriguing in the book and the ending is only slightly less disappointing, but definitely even wonkier. There's no rational reason why I rank it so highly, in that case. Certainly there's no solid literary reason.

But I do.
Neil | | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 10:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

W. Australopithecus - Well I haven't read the Dark Tower series either (sorry everyone for being so unread with King - I've read the really big early ones Shining, Stand, Carrie, etc.) so I don't know about those either. As for now it seems IT is the book of his I should read that I haven't.

As for NCFOM - Letting himself be arrested is the only possible explanation I can come up with for that beginning. Everything else in the movie points to this being an impossibility unless he actually allows it to happen.
Greg Ferrara| | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 11:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly - Dead Zone is probably my favorite of all King adaptations. I think Kubrick's Shining is a masterpiece and the better movie of the two but I love Dead Zone more. I think everything in that adaptation is done just right and the Gregg Stillson character seems to be an absolutely prescient work of genius on King's part. That character scares me more now than it ever did then.

I avoided the remake of The Wicker Man. I just didn't want that original ruined for me. I see from your opinion that I was wise in my choice.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 11:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheila - Okay, okay stop being so obnoxious!

Just kidding. I don't think it's obnoxious at all. Besides, you and Neil both seem to acknowledge the almost superflous nature of the reveal at the end which makes me think the film version gave too much weight to it and not enough to the character development.

I shall give it a read. Thanks.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.29.07 - 11:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil - When I read something that sticks with me I link it (and I know you're not complaining). I remember you being the only person posting on how you didn't like the movie that much and how the finger thing bothered you. I of course love the movie but kind of agree with you on the finger thing although Bill's take on it makes sense to me too.

As for Pennywise - Since I haven't read the book and only seen the movie I can say that if he's creepier in the book that's quite an accomplishment because Tim Curry's take was downright freaky. Every time I walk past a sidewalk drain I think of his face looking up telling me, "Everything floats down here."
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.30.07 - 12:00 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Greg! Great read, this. I'm endlessly fascinated by the subject, since my own angle on the film has changed radically over time. I used to be on King's side, until the mini-series convinced me of how brilliant Kubrick's adaptation really was.

I've made my own comparison in an essay called "Building a Better Bomb: The Alternatives to Suspense." You can find it on 24liesasecond.com , but I'll paste the relevant excerpt here (sorry for cluttering up your comment section):

The next step in the evolution of cinematic tension came in the form of Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980). That may seem a bold statement now, but it was completely in line with expectation at the time. Kubrick, the genius director who redefined science fiction, black comedy and just about any other genre he cared to touch, was to adapt a bestselling novel by the new King of Horror, Stephen King. What could possibly go wrong?

Boy, were some people in for a disappointment. Sure, there was plenty to marvel at in Kubrick’s The Shining - the gliding Steadicam shots, the larger-than-life production design and a bone chilling score are the vivid marks of a master filmmaker working at the top of his game. But all the technical and artistic joie de vivre in the world can’t revive a graveyard of missed opportunities. Or can they? Critics called the film stagy, muddled, heartless, wordy, deliberately paced and poorly contrived; while many fans of the book simply found Kubrick’s adaptation not scary enough. Stephen King himself accused Kubrick of having no apparent understanding of the genre, and not entirely without reason. Here was a horror film with no suspense hooks, no cheap thrills, no gratuitous gore, no snappy editing, no catharsis--what in bloody hell was Kubrick thinking he was adapting: Jane Austen? King compared the film to “a great big beautiful Cadillac with no motor inside. You can sit in it, and you can enjoy the smell of the leather upholstery - the only thing you can’t do is drive it anywhere.”

It makes you wonder what kept the engine running in King’s relentless page turner. The answer isn’t hard to find. As one of the finest practitioners of literary suspense, King never made a secret of it how much he values characterization. To use his words: “You have got to love the people... that allows horror to be possible.” Such a notion goes right back to the principles of Hitchcock, who frequently stressed that “fear depends upon the intensity of the public’s identification with the person who is in danger.” Audience identification: quite possibly the most fundamental ingredient for suspense.

Identification? With THESE people? Kubrick makes it almost impossible for us to connect with the characters in his version of The Shining. Jack makes a pretty bonkers impression from the moment we lay eyes on him (not surprisingly, since Nicholson inhabited Milos Forman’s Cuckoo’s Nest five years earlier), and there isn’t a great deal to admire about his s
Peet Gelderblom | | Email | Homepage | 12.30.07 - 4:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oops, I have exceeding the word count of a single post. Here's, I hope, the rest of it:

and there isn’t a great deal to admire about his spouse Wendy either, who is neither pretty nor clever, and curiously devoid of female intuition. Sure, we care about the kid, but Danny’s split personality conversations with Tony - the boy that lives in his mouth - freak us out just as much. It’s not for nothing that King chose to portray Danny’s imaginary friend as a separate entity; that made his youngest character easier to like. And as far as the instantly sympathetic Halloran is concerned, well, you remember what happens to him...

It is evident that Kubrick had no intention to conform to expectations. He was following his own compass and waved a lot of the novel’s scare tactics good-bye. The question is why he seemed intent on poking fun at the rules of the genre, when he had such a fine example at his disposal. Such was King’s frustration that he initiated a four-and-a-half-hour TV mini-series that stayed faithful to the source material, aptly called Stephen King’s The Shining (1997). Nevertheless, even though King’s traditional emphasis on myth and psychology worked wonders for the novel, the same approach made the mini-series remarkably unremarkable. In fact, it only testified to the brilliance of Kubrick’s adaptation. Sometimes a different medium benefits from a different approach.

Since its initial lukewarm reception in 1980, the reputation of Kubrick’s film has steadily improved. Two decades after its release, British movie magazine Empire called out The Shining as the Scariest Movie of All Time, describing it as “the only horror film that gets scarier the more you see it.” The magazine had a point there: Repeated viewings of scary movies usually suffer from the Law of Diminishing Returns, but The Shining’s fear factor tends to grow with age.

True innovation always takes some getting used to: Kubrick’s film so drastically deconstructed the genre in which it operated that it falls flat when judged by conventional standards. That doesn’t mean it is a failure; it just means Kubrick once again altered the form to fit his idiosyncratic sensibilities. In this particular case, he moved the horror film beyond the primarily visceral level to the cerebral. What he ended up with in many ways represents the antithesis of King's fiction. Taken on their own terms, though, the film and the book are equally frightening in a diametrically opposed fashion. Whereas the novel built suspense by means of interior monologue, Kubrick externalized the conflict and let his images do the real talking, the way a true visual stylist should.
Peet Gelderblom | | Email | Homepage | 12.30.07 - 4:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peet - That's a terrific analysis of King and Kubrick's views and understanding of horror. You know, earlier in the comments, Bill was talking about King mentioning how Kubrick didn't provide a jump scare moment when Jack comes up behind Wendy as she's reading his book. Bill wondered as I do why King thinks inserting visual cliches makes for a better horror film?

Kubrick's Shining did indeed take horror in a different direction in all of the ways you wrote. For one thing, he played on a sense of dread more than a sense of fright, which made for a much more chilling result than jump scares and a million cats jumping out of pantries ever could. Although I do so love cats jumping out of pantries.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.30.07 - 6:14 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Bill's example really points out the difference between these two masters (I admire both tremendously in different ways). King passionately embraces the rules of the genre, while Kubrick felt restricted by them. Kubrick once said: "I think that a preoccupation with originality of form is more or less a fruitless thing. A truly original person with a truly original mind will not be able to function in the old form and will simply do something different." I think this perfectly describes his approach to horror conventions in The Shining.

It's tempting for me to copy-paste the rest of that article (read the damn thing, already!), but allow me to quote one more paragraph:

When Jack finally goes after Danny and Wendy, it''s not the sudden crush of his axe splitting through the door that forces an emotional response in us, and it's not so much the apprehension of the kill or a lust for blood that gets us excited. Trivialities like these would only distract from what Kubrick sees as the real horror of the situation: the very idea of a father fucked-up enough to murder his own family. This Cadillac can drive alright; we just didn't notice it moving.
Peet Gelderblom | | Email | Homepage | 12.30.07 - 7:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peet - Fear not, I have now read it. It's a terrific piece. I especially like the sections on Hitch and suspense and how it's used. But back to The Shining, when you discuss the "frozen in time" aspect of Kubrick's ending that was (obviously in my opinion) what separates the book and film most dramatically. But something you wrote that struck me as something I hadn't thought of before, and I hope I'm not misreading it, was where you ask the question of basically, was Jack reincarnated at that moment, so to speak. Does he become the 1921 caretaker upon his death? When the new caretaker shows up in a few years to provide the hotel with fresh blood will that new caretaker appear in the photo? Obviously Torrance and Grady don't look alike so does the spirit of the caretaker simply take the form of the new person? It's fascinating and it's what the boiler subplot takes away from us. It takes away the eternal timeframe.
Greg Ferrara | | Email | Homepage | 12.30.07 - 10:03 pm | #

Haloscan Comments for "What the F..."

2008-09-11T09:08:00.001-04:00

I love this post so much I wish I could marry it. Particularly:

"that way no one could possibly figure out what the title was. Really, do you have any idea what this word is: F*ck? I didn't think so"

Yes. Exactly. Yes. Censorship of that variety fools absolutely no one except perhaps 3 year-olds (who aren't understanding much of what they're seeing anyway). In the world, all it does is heighten the mystique of the word and increase its value. I would contend that this is the exact opposite of the censors' intent.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 11.07.07 - 10:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuckin' A bubba! Oops, I mean, f*ckin' A! There, now no one's offended.

Glad you like the post. I really enjoy writing these historical "November is freakishly connected with censorship and taboos" posts on the pre- and post-code era.

But I'm afraid an earlier post I wrote on the Oscars has already proposed to this one and this post accepted. Sorry. Maybe you can be Best Man.

I have to go kill Claudius now. (No one but Ken will probably understand that).
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 11.07.07 - 11:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marianne Faithful proves yet again that she is one the coolest women that has ever walked the earth!

Oddly enough, I recently watched a rare Marianne Faithful film that I hope to write about soon so she's been on my mind a lot lately. Seeing her mentioned here was a happy surprise.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 11.08.07 - 3:10 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is only fitting that the woman who recorded what has to be the most un-sugarcoated, raw and profane song about a man straying in a relationship (Why'd ya do it?) should be the first one to say "fuck" on the screen.

As rock critic Greil Marcus said about the song in his four star review of her Broken English album, "There's a depth of obscenity here to make those male rockers who think they've gotten away with something when they throw a sexless "fuck" into a bragging tune blush."

I look forward to your post on Marianne. I wonder what the movie is.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 11.08.07 - 9:03 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wrote a blog post, which I can't seem to find anymore... perhaps it's lost in the ether... completely dedicated to my hatred of the "f*ck" thing. It's just such a bullshit lie. It pretends to protect me from the big, bad word, but forces me to think the word anyway. Stupid.
Neil | | Email | Homepage | 11.08.07 - 11:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

N*il,
Th*nks f*r y*or c*mment. I agr*e th*t it is st*pid and m*kes one th*nk of the w*rd even m*re so th*n if th*re was no ast*risk at all. I'm g*ing to s*arch yo*r arch*ves to see if I c*n find it bec*use I'd def*nitely l*ke to r*ad yo*r art*cle on the s*bject. Th*nks ag*in!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 10:12 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The gestalt effect in action, ladies and gentlemen.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 4:59 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I culdon't aerge wtih you mroe. I'm off ot pcik up a pecrisripton form teh parhcamy and mbyae smoe somkes. Leatr.
Jonthan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 5:10 pm | #

Jesus Effing Christ Archived Comments

2008-08-30T13:08:00.001-04:00

An excellent and very thought-provoking contribution Jonathan! This is one topic that I can debate on for days endlessly but still wont make a difference. Coming to cinematic terms, your choice of films for the double shot are unusual and incredibly profound. This is turning out to be a fantastic little blogathon. Thank you for this wonderful post.
Gautam | | Email | Homepage | 10.23.07 - 7:35 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gautam, Thanks! I'm so glad you liked it. I'm really happy to take part as it provided for a wonderful opportunity to highlight these two docs which I have thought of together as complementary pieces ever since Jesus Camp came out. Thanks for giving me the chance to write it all down.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.23.07 - 8:00 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, I really enjoyed the huckster language at the beginning of the post. Your segue to a serious consideration of the films was perfect. I have heard of Jesus Camp, but The God Who Wasn't There is a new find. I hope to catch your double bill soon. Thanks!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 10.23.07 - 10:36 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn,
Thanks so much. I'm glad you enjoyed the piece. My original intention was to do one or the other: Either the poster/program bill bit or the serious consideration bit. Then I thought as long as it's intended for a double-bill-a-thon why not double up and do both. Thanks again.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.23.07 - 2:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Crying of Lot Salem 49 Comments

2008-08-30T12:53:00.001-04:00

Anywho, the current occupants are two guys named Straker and Barlow. I met Straker at his antique shop the other day. Nice guy. Haven't met Barlow yet but Straker told me, "You'll enjoy Mr. Barlow, and he'll enjoy you." Boy what a couple of swell guys!

Hmm.... sounds like these guys may be gay. If that's the case, you might want to bring them a raunchy gag gift. Maybe a long wooden.. you know, sort of a... kind of a rod, but tapered at the end. For extra laffs, jab it at Barlow just as the door opens! Like, right at his chest! Hilarity.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 11:49 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they're as good-natured as I think they are I might just give that a try. I don't even know when we're going to get around to dinner because we're all going to be laughing and hugging each other so long after I arrive. It's going to be a great night! I'll fill you in on all the details later.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 12:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think they're vampires.
bill | | Email | 10.31.07 - 2:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well that's just crazy.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 3:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, well, when you go visit them and they die because of all the crosses you're throwing at them, don't say I didn't warn you.
bill | | Email | 10.31.07 - 3:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If my good friend Danny Glick were here he'd say you're crazy too. 'Course, I haven't seen him lately. Don't know where he could be.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 4:01 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Happy Halloween Jonathan!

Um, but you better be cautious about the house buying. You might want to consult this guy for some advice.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 4:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, please. Next you'll be saying that nice tall man who works down at the cemetery and rest home has some kind of flying ball of death.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 4:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about that, but I have heard that you guys might want to steer clear of that psychoplasmics institute they set up two towns over.
bill | | Email | 10.31.07 - 5:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly,
Look at me teacher... look at me...

Yeah, I talked to Ben Mears earlier. He just laughed, jumped in his jeep and took off.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 6:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Kimberly, Ken and Bill - I'm off. I'll tell you how it went later.

Happy Halloween!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 6:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm back from the house. I don't know what to say... I just... I feel awful. The door opened and... well, I'm not sure what happened really. Straker, boy was he mad! And Barlow, well... Barlow... again, I just feel awful. I don't think I got the house.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 9:29 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a bad market to buy, anyway.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 10.31.07 - 11:52 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Princess and The Duke Comments

2008-08-14T09:57:00.000-04:00

Your work week sounds like mine lately, but enough about real life and on to the silver screen...

Interesting lists. I'm not really a fan of either actor, but I found their picks strangely compelling to read. The Duke's ego on display is pretty amazing and I thought it was odd - but somehow not surprising - that the Princess only listed actresses.

I adore Liz Taylor even though she's constantly over-the-top, but that's why I love her! I might be the only person in the world who likes Butterfield 8, but that's probably due to another one of my favorite over-the-top actors being teamed up with Liz, the gorgeous Larry Harvey!!!

I've come to realize that I often like my actors over-the-top and "hammy" or very low-key. It's the boring middle men and women that don't do a lot for me. And by low-key, I don't mean dull as doorknobs (a.k.a. Kevin - yuck! - Costner). I mean more like Alain Delon or Lee Marvin.

I've never understood all the love for Gone with the Wind either. I'll take the campy Butterfield 8 over it any day of the week!
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 4:58 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not a fan of Grace Kelly? But she was so bland. Oh, wait a minute...

I quite agree. Grace Kelly bores me stiff. As for Wayne, I like him in The Searchers (and he did too apparently) and Stagecoach and probably even a few others but he's personally never been to my taste.

As for Liz, she definitely had bucketloads more personality than Grace. I was just amazed that these two very different actors, having all of film history to choose from, somehow both picked Taylor. I mean, what are the odds? Maybe if they're both selecting a list of fifty but from a list of five? Especially considering Wayne only picked two actresses.

I remember watching Butterfield 8 with my roommate in college and having a grand old MST3K time watching it. That was back in the day when AMC actually showed classic movies and TCM didn't even exist yet.

Thanks for the great comments, Kimberly.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 7:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a big Vincente Minnelli fan, I've always been a little curious about the1962 Horsemen, but haven't found a copy or seen it on TCM anywhere (at least recently). Even if it's bad, I want to see it just to see it. I wonder if the GWTW appearance is a generational thing-- that was such a landmark film for folks coming into the business when Wayne and Kelly did, that it probably made a big impression, whatever its qualities as a film (kind of like Shawshank Redemption seems to for anyone under 30 these days). I do like that Wayne had the chutzpah to choose two of his own films-- I'm just surprised one of them wasn't The Alamo.
cinephile | | Email | 09.13.07 - 12:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never seen the Minnelli version either so I was just going on the fact that the 21 version is considered great while the 62 version - not so much.

Now if Wayne had picked a movie he not only starred in but also directed that would have been something. But even he had to recognize that The Alamo just didn't cut it. And I don't know where A Man for All Seasons came from. It's well made, if nothing special. Scofield and Hiller are both excellent as well as most of the supporting cast, especially Robert Shaw. But greatest of all time? What? The Duke. He was something else. What exactly I don't know, but he was something else.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.13.07 - 1:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looked at from a different perspective...

The Duke worked on movies he believed in and The Princess worked for anyone.
Jon | | Email | 09.25.07 - 1:02 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that sounds right. I don't think John Wayne would have ever worked on a movie that he didn't believe, or to put it the other way around, I know he never would have worked on a movie that ran opposite to his way of thinking.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.25.07 - 6:01 am | #

You're Not Looking Yourself Today Comments

2008-08-14T09:53:00.000-04:00

Good lord, Chaplin was a handsome guy.

And I do like the loosey-goosey Peck look.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 09.07.07 - 9:44 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peck looks pretty cool there. Just needs a half smoked cig hanging from the side of his mouth to complete the look.

And Chaplin, barely recognizable out of the Little Tramp getup. As famous as he was he probably liked it that way.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.07.07 - 4:15 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love that pic of Peck! He looks like such a Beatnik there.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 2:52 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I finally updated my Flickr account (and my cast and crew sidebar) with the bigger versions of these, and without the film reel frames I use on the site.

I think Peck's picture is clearly everyone's fave. Let the poetry slam begin!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 8:27 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for that! I'll have to add it to my favorites over at Flickr. Peck is one of my favorite actors and I just adore him.

I also adore Kate but she looks rather pissed off there.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 09.11.07 - 12:29 pm | #

70s Second Golden Age Comments

2008-08-14T09:37:00.002-04:00

I think what people are talking about is that the 70's were the second Golden Age OF HOLLYWOOD, not of film. Film, as you say in slightly different words, has always been great--every year about as many good movies get made as any other year. But only twice has Hollywood lined up behind the artists and put their muscle behind the good movies that are being made, instead of just some movies that are being made. You say, "It was studio financing and promotion that made it seem bigger than it was." It's not that it made it seem bigger--studio financing and promotions IS what it was.
Ed Hardy, Jr. | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 12:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed,

I'm talking about Hollywood. I say in the beginning, "I thought it might be useful to re-examine the idea that the seventies were a second golden age for American cinema." I probably should have just said "Hollywood" there but by "American cinema" that's what I meant.

And I fully agree that studio financing and promotion is what it was. So when I write that it made it seem bigger what I am trying to say (but probably not all that clearly) is that it made it seem as if there were more good movies coming out than in other years when my belief is that people remember those films more because they were such "big events" rather than just two week closers as many have been since.

And in my conclusion, when I answer "Yes and No" to the question of whether there was in fact a second golden age, that's my honest answer. I really don't know. I've gone over it in my head a million times and more often than not it does seem to me that it was simply a brief period of promotion for small films becoming prominent, but not necessarily more good films being made.

And in my own small way, I just wanted to open up that can of worms again for those unfortunate enough to wander in here by mistake. Once an idea takes hold (in any walk of life, but for our purposes here, in the world of film) it becomes entrenched quickly and anyone speaking against it becomes a heretic. I'm not trying to be a barn-burner but I've heard and read about the "second golden age of the seventies" like it's goddamn gospel for so long that I wanted re-examine it for myself. Because, let's face it, the idea that has become entrenched has nothing to do with promotion and financing. The idea that is now written in stone is that the early to mid-seventies Hollywood films were all so much better than what came before in the fifties and sixties and what came after from the late seventies to now. And to that I say, "Horseshit." But I see from your comments that that idea is not entrenched with you, and that's a welcome breath of fresh air.

Thanks for your thoughts on the subject. If you have any more, please comment further.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 1:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, and I'll try not to over-comment on my own post, but the sixties and seventies produced an abundance of exceptional non-english language films so I think that when the seventies Hollywood movies get over-promoted as a "golden age" it tends to illuminate how many other country's efforts go unnoticed as if the Hollywood movies were all that mattered. The sixties and seventies gave us the titans of world cinema at the heights of their artistic prowess but Hollywood promotes some small films for five years and that's all anyone remembers.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 1:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm wary of the label "golden age", whether it's being applied to movies, music, or any other kind of artistic expression you care to mention. It smacks of nostalgia, and nostalgia is after all a form of regret. I think that the cyclical nature of tastes and fashion, the lingering effects of sixties idealism, the volatile political climate of the times, and (as you point out Jonathan) promotion all contributed to encouraging a glut of exceptional films that we are still dissecting to this day. But if we are in agreement that films are not created in a vacuum, then the Hollywood productions of the seventies, the good and the bad, were nothing more than a reflection of society's concerns and anxieties at a specific point in history.
Rick Ryan | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 8:55 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do agree with the assessment that American films of the early 70's were generally better than American films of the late sixties but just by a nose. After all if we pick movies of the last half of the sixties we can come up with Bonnie and Clyde, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Graduate, Endless Summer, Cool Hand Luke, Point Blank, The President's Analyst, Reflections in a Golden Eye, Rachel Rachel, Once Upon a Time in the West, Midnight Cowboy, The Wild Bunch, Alice's Restaurant, Easy Rider, Medium Cool, Take the Money and Run and They Shoot Horses, Don't They?. I may not love each and every one of those but there's no denying that's a quality lot. And hey, I don't love each and every one I mentioned for the seventies either but it's also an impressive bunch. The point is I think most people would be hard pressed to say that each film I mentioned for the early seventies clearly outdoes each film I mentioned for the late sixties. Yet the late sixties is not known as a golden age and the early seventies is. And again, I think it comes down to promotion. The studios were pushing the smaller films because they were making money, not because the studios suddenly found a deep love for art. As a result, the false(?) memory is that the early seventies produced voluminous amounts of great films whereas other decades did not.

I'm sure I sound like I'm just continuing to make the same point over and over. Maybe I'm trying to convince myself. For years, I too have thought of the early seventies as a renaissance for American film but as time progresses I think that less and less. And as I surveyed the box office takes then and now it became much clearer. People remember the big money makers. No one's going to forget about Harry Potter anytime soon. And so when they compare the movies from one decade to another the big money makers stick out, at least for your average moviegoer if not for your average cinephile. And so they think Pearl Harbor and Fantastic Four for the 2000's and MASH and Chinatown for the early seventies and naturally conclude, "Wow those movies in the seventies sure were better." But if you're comparing Mulholland Drive and Ghost World from 2001 to Earthquake and Towering Inferno from 1974 you're going to come to a very different conclusion. But no one's going to use Mulholland Drive and Ghost World because they won't immediately come to mind because they were box-office duds.

I've got to stop commenting on this, my fingers are getting tired from the html formatting. Anyway, I hope I've made the point more lucidly in my comments.

And yes, Rick, you are right in that it is definitely a reflection of the times that gave many of those films of the early seventies their power just as the 2000's times gave Mulholland Drive and Ghost World their power. Societal fears and beliefs affect the arts all around them.

Thanks for your thoughts Rick.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 11:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps my view of the era was at too formative an age colored by Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," but many of the movies you listed as being good films from the late '60's I would lump into the same movement as those made a year or two later when it was technically the '70's.
Ed Hardy, Jr. | | Email | Homepage | 09.04.07 - 11:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's another free ride for the early seventies by getting movies from a year or two before lumped in with them. We could produce similar lists from just about any five year period as I did for the late sixties, but the most acclaimed would not be among the biggest box-office. And in the end that's where the seventies' rep comes from and that I cannot deny (nor would I want to since it's my whole premise). It was a brief period, as I and you, Ed, in your comments, said before where the best movies were the ones getting the backing and the promotion. And that was the difference. And I can understand that being called a "second golden age", especially by the filmmakers who reaped the benefits, but again, what most people think about with a phrase like "golden age" is that all the movies were better.

I remember reading Easy Riders, Raging Bulls a few years back and found it thoroughly entertaining. But keep in mind that Spielberg, Lucas, DePalma, Scorcese and Coppola have all said that not a word in it is true and that Biskind was getting his information from anonymous party-goers, groupies and disgruntled wannabes and put whatever he heard on paper to excite the senses and push the sales. So take that as you will. My favorite part (true or not) is when Spielberg is in a brainstorming session and needs to put on his "thinking" music and puts on the James Bond theme. Like I said, I don't know from what I've heard from the principals involved if any of it is true or if there is just sour grapes but Spielberg does get the brunt of Biskind's poison pen. He's made to look insecure, foolish and humiliated by the women in his life throughout and if that were really the case I'm not sure he could have continued in Hollywood with the confidence and security he did. Of course, many people have an amazing ability to be two different people in their personal and work life so who knows. But I'll take Spielberg at his word that's it's all sensationalistic journalism.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.05.07 - 7:26 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting post Jonathan!

Obviously a quick look at my own film blog will tell you that I have an obvious bias towards '60s and '70s era films. I think it has a lot to do with the artists/filmmakers who made them and the progressive views and politics that they pushed forward with their work. The sexual revolution, women's rights and civil rights were taking shape then and being advanced by art, music and film. There was also a strong conscious effort on the part of filmmakers to take an anti-war attitude and expand on it where previous generations had been much more conservative.

Actors in '60s and '70s also greatly benefited from the advancement of Method acting, which really didn't start showing up in films until the late '40s.

In the '60s' and 70s films started becoming more than just "entertainment" and film studies and criticism started really taking shape as well during these times, which is why I find the decades extremely exciting and fascinating. All these things combined to create a truly "golden age" in Hollywood filmmaking in the late 60s and early 70s in my opinion. For some reason a lot of important and amazing sixties era films are often overlooked.

I personally think that current (‘80s-07) filmmaking trends in Hollywood tend to reflect the conservative turn America took in the ‘80s as well as the urge to make a buck. Spielberg ushered in the age of the "blockbuster," but Hollywood seemed to also follow the trend towards conservatism in America with the Reagan era, AIDS, etc. and they started producing films that seemed to be the antithesis of the kind of movies they were releasing in the '70s.

I would argue that even with occasional breakout films now, Hollywood is still taking a much more capitalist/conservative approach to making films than it did during the last "golden age." Most of the best movies made in the last 20 years have been independent films with no studio support.

I personally find that most Hollywood films made in the past 30 or 25 years are all surface gloss with very little depth.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 09.05.07 - 8:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly,
I'm so glad you stopped by. The golden age referred to in this period really did have to do with allowing artists to make the movies they wanted, thanks to box-office, which really doesn't happen anymore. I realize it is much harder now for an artist to make exactly what he wants and get the money to make it and during the late sixties to mid-seventies there was a lot more freedom to do what you wanted and get studio backing. So, like I said, definitely the writer/directors involved benefitted greatly.

I agree that the eighties marked a downturn in the type of movies that were made and I think Spielberg had a lot to do with that. I sometimes feel alone in the wilderness of online film bloggers in my lack of awe for Spielberg. And it goes even further. Another thing that puts me on the outs with so many onliners is my utter disdain for computer animation. I know, I sound like a curmudgeonly old fart. I find them to be all so filled to the brim with lazy pop culture references masquerading as jokes and acting as a substitute for story that I probably end up missing some very good ones. But sometimes when something rubs you the wrong way it's hard to get past it. For instance, I keep hearing marvelous grand things about "Ratattouille" but the thought of paying money to see it makes my chest tighten. I'd rather stick needles in my eyes. It's an inexplicable bias I know and I probably have to get past it at some point. It's never good to judge things in sweeping general terms and I know I shouldn't be doing that with computer animation but for now at least, I just don't like it. It bores me stiff. So sometimes, I really feel like just giving up and saying the hell with blogging. If this is what people want to read about I'm guess I was dead in the water before I even started. But then I read the wonderful and engaging comments by people like you and Ed Hardy and Rick Ryan on this post and remember that there are plenty of blogs out there (Your's being a PRIME example) that don't shovel the same old cow dung down my throat.

Well, that turned out to be quite a comment. Thanks for hearing me out. And to anyone else who might read this, I'm really not trying to be self-pitying or come down on other writers, so many of whom, even when writing about Spielberg or computer-animated films, do wonderful work. I was just trying to explain some of my own personal frustrations eminating from my own likes and dislikes.

Thanks again, Kimberly. See you soon.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.05.07 - 11:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can be "curmudgeonly old farts" together Johnathan!

I totally understand your reservations about the Spielberg worshiping that goes on. I don't understand it at all. I think he made some fun entertaining films (Jaws, Close Encounters and the first Indiana Jones) and one great movie that I happen to love but no one else does and that's Empire of the Sun.

Like you I also can't stand most computer animation and CGI used in films also drives me nuts most of the time. There are few and very rare exceptions, but for the most part I think computer generated imagery has a long way to go before I can enjoy it.

I honestly have no interest in 75 or 85% of the films coming out of Hollywood. The movies bore me, the actors are dull and all-in-all I just would rather spend my time watching something good even if it was made 30 years ago.

If that makes me an old fart and nostalgic, so be it. Then again, I did pay to see Hostel 2 so I suppose that says something else about me entirely. ;D
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 09.06.07 - 3:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Computer animation.

Speaking as a whippersnapper...

It's important to remember that CGI is a method of delivery and not a genre with built-in expectations. Granted, CGI has largely been used to deliver films that are by and large pretty worthless (I'm blanching at the very real possibility of Shrek freaking 3 getting an Oscar nomination because AMPAS doesn't know what the hell to do with the Best Animated Feature category), but I believe that does more to condemn the studios behind them than the style itself.

I'm a big comics nerd, so I kind of equate it to "comics" getting equated with "superhero books"; it may seem like an academic distinction to some, but it's a vitally important one to people actually practicing in the field. Just as there's a lot of truly fantastic comics work being done that has nothing to do with capes and tights, so too are there computer animated movies doing what the best animation always does: showing us sights that we literally cannot see anywhere else. It's just that Dreamworks SKG isn't the one doing that work.

Not that I don't understand your gut reaction. I had a bad experience with a Wim Wenders film nearly 10 years ago, and you'd have to strap me to a chair Clockwork Orange-style to get me to watch another one of his movies. It's silly and irrational and yadda yadda, but my gut still clenches at any mention of his name.

And CGI special effects in movies bother me a lot; they're the quickest possible way to break immersion that I can think of. But I lay the blame there at the feet of directors and FX types who don't yet fully understand the nuances of the technology.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 09.06.07 - 7:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who let the whippersnapper in here? Ken - WIM WENDERS! Sorry, just wanted to see you flinch. I know CGI can produce good stuff I just don't connect with it. I heard Finding Nemo was great. I saw it. I thought it was good. It made no personal connection with me. I don't care if I ever see it again. Ditto Shrek, The Incredibles and any other "great" CGI movie that comes out. I'm sure when I finally see Ratatouille I will understand its good reviews as well. I'm also pretty sure I won't care about it at all. I don't personally relate to ogres, fish, superheroes or rats with designs on becoming great chefs. If my occupation were as a film critic I feel confident I could (as objectively as possible for me) review them for what they are. But fortunately that is not my occupation so even if I find them well-made I have the luxury as a blogger to also say "but I don't give a flying crap."

Now as for CGI effects in movies let me just say, and this is going to be subtle so I hope my message doesn't get lost between the lines, I HATE THEM! After so many years of them being used they STILL don't look real to me or natural at all. CGI animators have organisms performing unnatural movements that no one seems to notice. To use two comic book examples, both Spiderman and Hulk when swinging or jumping go up way too fast and instead of reaching a natural apogee where motion momentarily stops, and a graceful descent occurs, they instead immediately come bolting back down. The human brain knows from observing everyday occurances like a ball being thrown up into the air that this is not natural yet the intellectual wizards in charge keep producing the effects the same way. To quote Marvel comics, "Aaaarrrrrgggghhhhh!"

But to regurgitate my main point that you first addressed, I know CGI can be good, I just don't like it. That may change, but as I get older (I just recently turned the big 4-0) I don't see myself gravitating towards movies like this, I see myself moving further away.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.06.07 - 10:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What needs to be remembered about the early 70s is that while there were some small, relatively personal films that were hits, there were also many that failed to find an audience. Universal tried to jump on the bandwagon with a group of films directed by, among others, Milos Forman and John Cassavetes. Over at Columbia Pictures, the guys who produced Easy Rider had a few films that bombed, particularly Henry Jaglom's A Safe Place. On the positive side, there was still a willingness to gamble, something that Hollywood does little of now, now that the financial stakes have become so large.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 09.07.07 - 2:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the positive side, there was still a willingness to gamble, something that Hollywood does little of now, now that the financial stakes have become so large.

Isn't that the truth! It is precisely the studios putting up money for smaller movies that separates the early to mid seventies. But as you note, it didn't always work out. Roger Ebert wrote recently about John Cassavetes in his August 23rd
Answer Man Column, "The improvised look of his films is the heart and soul of the spontaneous effect, and allowed him to make exactly the films he wanted to. It’s doubtful the general public would have embraced him even if he’d shot in 3-D IMAX."

Alas, some filmmakers like Cassavetes just couldn't reach a larger audience regardless. Take the extended scene just after the opening in Faces with three drunk people randomly spouting dialogue/nonsense for twenty minutes and try and imagine that winning over a mass audience ever. Cassavetes was so far beyond avant-garde that Robert Altman's films looked downright unimaginative in comparison. The fact that Cassavetes was given any chance at all does indeed say something incredible (if not wonderful) about how differently the studios were run for that brief period.

Peter, thanks for the thoughts and observations. Your extensive knowledge of non-commercial and alternative cinema is always welcome.

P.S. If your site were called "Alcohol, Alcohol, and more Alcohol" you could go crazy with screen grabs from Cassavetes films.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.07.07 - 4:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't personally relate to ogres, fish, superheroes or rats with designs on becoming great chefs.

Well, this raises some other interesting questions. I look at that summary and say "well, no, Ratatoiulle is about the intersection of art and criticism among other things, The Incredibles is about so-and-so and Finding Nemo is about such-and-such and... well, Shrek pretty much just thinks irreverence + pop culture jokes equals a plot." I appreciate that they're plumbing at deep threads of story, and do so while showing us amazing sights. (You might have done better to see Pixar's work in the theater. Entering Syndrome's island fortress on the monorail -- wow.)

Do you find you have this problem with genre films in general? That is, something that is less-than-literal in presenting its subject matter? I like to think I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to that sort of thing, but you couldn't pay me to see anything with an elf in it... so I have my blind spots.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 12:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hold on a second. You come into my house and tell me you don't like elves - just who in the hell do you think you are? MY BROTHER IS AN ELF! Okay, he's not. And I've personally never known one. But I'd sure like to.

Anyway, thanks for picking out my comment about ogres, fish, superheroes and rats. I figured after I wrote it it might get me into trouble. Obviously I don't relate to cafe owners under Vichy government control helping rebels escape Nazis but I think Casablanca is wonderful. And so it really doesn't matter who the main characters are in relation to the kind of story being told and what it says to you. And I did not make it clear enough (as I should have) that I found those CGI movies I mentioned to be very good (and did see two in the theatre but I'm not saying which two - okay Shrek and Finding Nemo). I just don't respond well to bright sunshiney colors and rainbows and lollipops in my movies and these movies present me with stories and ideas that I simply relate to better when they involve real people in (what feels to be) real situations. So something like You Can Count on Me or Tender Mercies have a much greater impact on me. Little to no pretense, simple filming methods, nothing to detract from simply taking in the characters and feeling what they feel, and all without endless pop culture references and jokes.

I have no problem with genre films. I love science fiction (especially the fifties and sixties), horror (especially thirties and sixties, particularly Roger Corman)and old time Hollywood musical from the thirties through the fifties. And there's nothing less literal and non-naturalistic than people spontaneously breaking into song. But I don't like CGI. I just don't. Sorry.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 1:51 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's cool. Don't worry -- I wasn't getting on your ass about it or anything, I was just trying to map out where the disconnect might be.

Musicals, though. Oy! Pass.

That's right, now I'm just being provocative.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 7:10 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Musicals, though. Oy! Pass.

That's it! I'm hopping the next flight to Dallas. (Insert winking emoticon here - that oughta do it).
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 09.09.07 - 8:10 pm | #

Veronica Lake Comments

2008-08-14T09:29:00.001-04:00

Thanks for this Jonathan! I have had a long love affair with Ms. Lake since I was a teenager. In high school I was obsessed with the Coen Bros., and was watching any movie that was said to have influenced them. Thus I came across "The Glass Key" and the absolutely brilliant (as you point out) deadpan sarcasm of Veronica Lake.

Just a year or so later "L.A. Confidential" came out. In the advance press, the connection between Veronica Lake and the character played by Kim Basinger was hinted at. My teenage heart--lovesick as I was over a movie star dead for thirty years--became enraged. "Basinger is nothing like Veronica Lake!" I ranted. "She's a good foot taller for one thing! And Basinger couldn't do sarcastic if her like depended on it!" Etc.

But my grandmother said that she had always thought that Kim Basinger looked just like Veronica Lake. And in matters of classic Hollywood, one should always defer to older generations.

Thanks again for the wonderful write-up, Jonathan!
Ed Hardy, Jr. | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 1:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed, thanks for confirming I'm not crazy! I'm with you 100 percent on the whole Kim Basinger / Veronica Lake comparison. There is none. I'm so glad I'm not alone in my fondness for Ms. Lake. With her expert deadpan delivery and modern looks I am puzzled at her lack of recognition with today's generation of classic film lovers. Well, at least there's now two movie lovers I can think of who don't have that problem.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 2:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wonderful write-up about one my favorite '40s era stars! I first saw her in I Married A Witch on TV when I was just a kid and I thought she was wonderful in it. She was terrific in Sullivan's Travels (such a good movie) too and I also really like her in This Gun for Hire, The Glass Key and Hold that Blond, which oddly enough are the only Veronica Lake films I've managed to see.

She was really lovely and I agree that she does have an unconventional look that seems somewhat modern. I love her sense of humor, quirky smile and quick wit.

I actually like Basinger when she's given a good role (which is rare), but she's no Veronica Lake and they're very different actresses in my mind.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 3:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cinebeats: Not to turn this into a Basinger bash-a-thon, but when has she been given a good role?

"Blind Date" maybe?
Ed Hardy, Jr. | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 4:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly,

Glad to have another Lake lover here. I was a little apprehensive when I first did this piece that I'd get more "Are you crazy? Veronica Lake?" responses. I love her in I Married a Witch and This Gun for Hire and The Glass Key as well. I've never seen Hold That Blond but hopefully soon.

As for Ed's comment about Basinger, well Kimberly did say her good roles were rare. I suppose one could say L.A. Confidential but I was a little puzzled by the Oscar. I didn't think she was bad I just didn't see what she did that was Oscar worthy. I thought her best performance was in Nadine, not a popular movie like some of her others but she was definitely good (well, I thought so at least). But in agreement with both of you, she's no Veronica Lake.

Oh yeah, and I actually thought she was kind of amusing in Ready to Wear although again, nothing spectacular and the movie is easily among Altman's worst so I won't be revisiting it to double check myself with that last assessment.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 4:52 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Basinger's most interesting roles have been in Altman's Fool for Love, Adrian Lyne's Nine 1/2 Weeks, L.A. Confidential and I Dreamed of Africa which I caught playing on TV one night.

As I mentioned above, she is no Veronica Lake and just because I liked her performance doesn't mean I'm all that fond of the films I mentioned. It just seems like she might have had something to offer early in her career, but she's always got crappy roles. Now she just seems rather nutty.

After looking over the other Oscar nominees in 1998 she was up against when she won, I actually think the Academy made the right choice which I don't think often. Of course, there were probably plenty of better performances to be found in movies that were not even nominated that year.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 6:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely forgot about Fool for Love! She's very good in that and the movie's good too.

Thanks for reminding me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 6:55 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love Lake even though I've really barely seen any of her films. She is instantly appealing, and has a timeless quality in her look and demeanor. I think though what drew me to her was that I actually went to the same high school she was kicked out of, and held her in high regard as a rebellious icon. It's a shame her career was cut short.
Justine | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 7:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that the high school in Miami? What did she get kicked out for?

I really like her self deprecating wit. I always find it a plus when people poke fun at themselves. Everything I read mentioned how so many actors and directors found her "difficult" to work with. I have a strong feeling it came from her wry cynicism and what "difficult" really meant was that she didn't kowtow to their whims when they were expecting the Mr. Smearkase treatment.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 10:14 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No actually, Montreal. It was a Catholic boarding school (it isn't anymore). She was apparently kicked out for repeated bad behavior. I don't know specifics.
Justine | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 10:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. Getting kicked out of a Catholic boarding school - ticking off the nuns. She's a baaaaad girl. I like her even more now.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.31.07 - 10:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read a bit of Veronica Lake's autobiography when I had to do some research on one of her costars and it was heady stuff. She should have written porn. Or at least pulp fiction.

I'm also with the grudging Bassinger admirerers. I've been seeing KB in stuff since DOG AND CAT in the mid-70s and have seen her mature into an interesting older actress. I liked her in the oddball People I Know with Al Pacino. And on The Simpsons. Actually, I liked her in the sex scene in The Getaway remake, too. You don't often see a man suck on a woman's nipples as foreplay to balls-out rumpo in mainstream movies, though it happens all the time in my house.
Arbogast | | Email | Homepage | 11.14.07 - 1:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should all write porn, maybe we could pay more bills. I'd love to read that autobiography. Maybe I shall.

I don't think Basinger's bad and as I said in some of the earlier comments she's done some good stuff. I just don't find her that interesting. Although on The Simpsons her little trio with Alec and Ron was pretty funny. Especially Ron Howard's, "Where's the shuttlecock? WHERE'S THE SHUTTLECOCK??!!?!?"

Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 11.14.07 - 2:05 pm | #

Oscar 1940 - 1944 Comments

2008-08-14T09:18:00.000-04:00

Jonathan, It's undeniable - Casablanca could be described as a "perfect storm" of a movie. As you point out, all the variables came together to create something truly timeless. I've lost track of how many times I've watched it ( maybe 50? ) and I never tire of it.
I'm enjoying these Oscar posts of yours immensely - I plan to see as many of the winners as time and my budget will allow.
Rick Ryan | | Email | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 9:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Casablanca is perfection. Had I chosen any other film for 1943 my Oscars posts would be meaningless.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 8:19 am | #

Karloff as The Mummy Comments

2008-08-14T09:10:00.000-04:00

Karloff is so great in The Mummy! And Zita is so stunning. She has to be one of the most lovely women I've ever seen. It's really a shame that she didn't make more movies.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 1:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to I.M.D.B Zita only made eleven movies. And aside from a cameo in 1986 her career ended in 1934 after just a few short years. I don't know much about her but according to the trivia section on I.M.D.B. she was a "strong woman" who it is implied aired her views with people. I'm probably being paranoid about it but that could be it given the ego-maniacal men running the studios in its heyday.

It also says she was married to John Houseman. If she was with Houseman then I assume even further she had little patience with knuckleheads like Mayer, Zannuck, Warner, etc. Apparently she continued to act on Broadway however into the forties.

And Karloff was a great underrated actor who suffered from typecasting in Hollywood. Fortunately, he never let the quality of the film he was in affect his performances. Although the quality of film didn't start suffering until later on. His movies in the early to mid-thirties are just terrific.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 3:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, Karloff appeared in The Lost Patrol, a 1934 release directed by John Ford.

Have you seen it - and if so do you recommend it?
Rick Ryan | | Email | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 7:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly, Rick I have not seen it yet. However, if it's directed by John Ford and stars Victor McLaglen and Boris Karloff I think I would recommend it sight unseen. My list of films to see is still immensely long even after decades of viewing movie after movie. If I see it first, I'll let you know. If you see it first, I'll read about it on your page.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 9:11 pm | #

Double the Goodness Comments

2008-08-14T08:46:00.000-04:00

Found this place by way of your great comments on Scanners. I'll be back.

No, I have nothing more insightful to add than that, for the time being...
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 08.26.07 - 1:27 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? No thoughts on the Glaciarium? Just kidding. Thanks for stopping by. I've checked out "Ringwood" and it appears you have one of those "distinctive voices" that everyone seemed to be complaining that no one had. When they weren't complaining about how bad we all are as writers that is. Geez, I don't think anyone writing about film today, including Roger Ebert, writes on the level of James Agee (of whom W.H. Auden said his writing should be studied for its eloquance whether someone is interested in film or not) but it doesn't mean I can't get insight from them. True, if their writing is too long-winded or belabored I might not finish their piece or return to their site but for the most part I enjoy surfing the movie blogs and taking in all the diverse opinions, despite the often "average" writing.

See you soon (on Scanners or Ringwood).
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.26.07 - 10:12 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well.. first, thanks for the compliment, though Ringwood is updated irregularly at best and was (until recently) mostly about comics, as you'll be able to tell if you check out what I link to.

That said, I'm one of those mid-20's guys whose knowledge of movies drops off dramatically the further back you go, and I need an education in the worst way. My personal belief is the best education in the arts is to get thrown in the deep end with the big boys, and that's what I'm doing here...
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 08.26.07 - 6:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, right, and to your actual point: I am also not detecting the lack of interesting voices on the internet, or in print. But that may be due to my admittedly insane practice of just, you know, reading the people I enjoy, and allowing myself to try out material outside my norm... because who knows what you'll find?

Scanners has done so much to broaden my horizons re: film discussion, and I know just from reading the comments that there's just this whole wide world of amazing, involving film talk. Like here.

And it's just plain nice to get your geek on, and everyone's cool with it...
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 08.26.07 - 6:15 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I learn more from film blogs, sites,comments and discussions than I do from my film books. Not that I don't get anything from those but the comments and discussions give me alternative viewpoints that are sorely lacking in academia.

By the way, my brother who is in his late forties bought all kind of comics when he was a kid. He had all the original Spidermans, Hulks, Fantastic Fours, etc. My mom of course threw almost all of them out but a few got missed by her and I found them in the attic when I was in college. Anyway, Spiderman #7 was up there and in pretty bad condition but I still got a few hundred for it at the local D.C. comic store. To think he had numbers 1 through 6 and they got chucked. Aaaarrrhhhh.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.26.07 - 10:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oscars 65 through 69 Comments

2008-08-14T08:24:00.001-04:00

Yes, I'll concede that The Sand Pebbles is an ungainly and tedious snooze fest that should have been edited with a meat cleaver. But it also showcases what I consider to be the most heartfelt and honest performance of Steve McQueen's career.It's without a doubt his best work.

For that reason alone, The Sand Pebbles can be forgiven its many problems.
Rick Ryan | | Email | Homepage | 08.23.07 - 11:00 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick, thanks for stopping by.

One reason I enjoy doing these Oscar posts is it gives me the opportunity to cover so many different movies in one post. However, that's also the problem. In any given Oscar post I cover between 50 and 60 movies that I have seen and as a result usually only have enough room for a sentence or two for each. Even the ones I end up picking only get a paragraph. If I'm not crazy about a movie I may come off a bit flippant but I certainly would caution anyone not to take these comments as full-fledged reviews.

You should write up The Sand Pebbles on your site . I'd be interested in reading it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.23.07 - 2:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting observations Jonathan and I enjoyed reading them even if we don't totally agree on some films. I love a lot of British cinema from this period, including films like Darling, Alfie, Far from the Madding Crowd, Georgy Girl and Richard Lester's films.

I also like The Sand Pebbles, The Grauate and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf more than you, but I agree with a lot of your thoughts about the Oscars. I think they're often totally useless awards that mean nothing in the long run.

You selected some terrific films as your personal favorites from each year! I haven't seen Playtime and obviously I should so many thanks for the recommendation.

Looking over these lists of films I'm still astonished at the quality of the Oscar nominees compared to recent years. The Oscar nominees of the last 20 years (or more?) have been questionable at best and plain horrible too damn often.

Maybe it's just me, but I just cant fathom the popularity of most stuff coming out of Hollywood these days.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.23.07 - 2:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly,

Thanks for the feedback. As I said in my response to Rick these Oscar posts don't allow for fleshed out analysis of each individual film but I try to signal when I like a movie by saying it's notable or commenting on a performance and I definitely like Alfie, Far from the Madding Crowd, Georgy Girl and Richard Lester's movies. In fact that's the reason I wanted to take a few sentences to write about how influential Lester was. Darling I'm not a big fan of or The Sand Pebbles but every other one you mentioned I definitely like.

As for Darling I haven't seen it in a few years but I didn't like the characters very much. At the time they didn't seem very interesting to me. I say "at the time" because it could be different if I watch it again. Now with Georgy Girl I love the characters, especially Lynn Redgrave, of course, and poor befuddled James Mason. Charlotte Rampling, while excellent didn't interest me as much because she seemed so one-note.

And since both you and Rick mentioned The Sand Pebbles and I have a friend for which The Sand Pebbles is her favorite movie I'm beginning to feel isolated in my feelings for it. I guess I need to see that one again as well.

As for the Oscars they often keep films in the spotlight for decades that don't deserve to be there. As I do these posts I am often appalled when I look at what the Best Picture Oscar has gone to. So far I have covered 42 years and I have been in agreement a whopping eight times. And it gets much worse. I already have all my picks in drafts waiting to be fleshed out and over the next 37 years I am only in agreement three(!) times. There might be a fourth with one that I'm wavering on.

Also just because I mention a movie is worth seeing mainly for the performances doesn't mean I don't think it's worthwhile. Acting and film are my first loves and because I have acted so much and love it so much I sometimes fixate on it. Hence all the references to performances in this and all my other Oscar posts. I love watching a great performance.

And finally, it takes me a while to see current movies because I just don't care that much. Here's the usual scenario: Someone finds out I know a lot about movies and they start asking me about this or that in theatres now or released in the last one or two years. I say "I haven't seen it yet" to about 90% of their questions and they get confused and I explain that there are still so many films from the early 1900's through the 1970's that I haven't seen yet and so those movies from 2006 and 2007 are just going to have to wait. With so many great classics from past decades still awaiting my first viewing I just don't care that much if I haven't seen the latest "must-see". And add on to that how many movies are praised to the hilt upon release only to fall into the memory hole of mediocrity years later and it doesn't seem that unwise to wait a bit.

Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.23.07 - 4:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I mentioned above, even if we may disagree on some films (I love David Lean's epics!), I really do enjoy reading your thoughts and your criticisms seems well thought out.

The Sand Pebbles does have some "bloat" to it. I happen to like it's understated anti-war sentiment that gets sort of lost at times and I'm also nutty about McQueen so my bias about his performance could cloud my judgment a bit.

It's fascinating to consider why people so often have different reactions to various films. I think a lot of it has something to do with our backgrounds and what aspects of cinema generally interest us.

I love good performances too and I enjoy how you point out ones you liked in your post. I didn't realize you were interested in acting and that's fascinating to know. It gives me another insight into how you approach writing about films.

If I had stayed in college and focused on film, I would have probably ended up as a cinematographer since that is often where a lot of my focus is when I'm watching a movie. I can often ignore bad performances and poorly plotted movies if the photography is amazing.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly,

Always good to hear from you. My personal McQueen favorites are Bullitt and The Great Escape which I've probably seen ten times at least. I also enjoy The Blob very much.

As for acting, despite a successful college and community theatre "career" I dropped out of it right after leaving college due to youthful waywardness. I'd like to get back into it but only as an actor in a film I write and direct (and edit and do the music for) and that is nowhere on the horizon so for now I will satisfy my love for movies by writing about them.

I mentioned your blog twice in Jim Emerson's comments section on Scanners on "The Stepford Critics" as an example of great posting and commenting. I hope people who have never been to your site read it and give you a look. Not that you need it being a pretty popular destination already but I just thought in the context that sites like yours and Dennis' and Jim's and The Siren's should be mentioned as you are all so good at engaging in discussion with commenters on your respective sites.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.26.07 - 9:59 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McQueen made a lot of terrific films. I really like his performance in Love with a Proper Stranger, The Thomas Crown Affair, Papillon and The Getaway a lot too.

I wish you the best of luck with whatever you put your time and energy towards! I'd love to be able to go back to college myself and hopefully someday I'll be able to.

Last but not least, thanks so much for the kind words about my blog over at Jim's site. I posted a long-winded comment over there last night but it hasn't show up yet. Jim's been posting a lot of good stuff lately and it's hard to keep up.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 1:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly,

I kept putting off replying here until I saw your comments on Scanners but I still don't see anything there. Which post did you comment on?

And I know what you mean by it's hard to keep up. It may sound strange but I feel I have to comment on posts I read, like a compulsion almost, and when I go to Scanners and see Jim has posted for the fifth time in three days I think, "Stop posting so damn much!" give me a chance to catch up. Of course I don't comment on everything but I like the feeling of being in discussion about film with so many members of the community.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 9:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anton Walbrook Comments

2008-08-13T22:29:00.001-04:00

I really need to see The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. I enjoyed your right up of it and I love all the Powell and Pressburger films I have seen.

Speaking of...

I think Powell is a great example of an amazing director who was ignored and forgotten until the sixties when his work was "re-discovered" by guys like Scorsese and thanks to DVD, he's finding an even larger audience. Now it can be argued that he's part of some kind "pantheon" but in the late 80s when I was in college he was still barely even mentioned and I've got the text books to prove it. It's seems impossible now, but Powell's a fascinating example of how opinion can change.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.17.07 - 9:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't agree more. When I was first studying film the only thing mentioned by Powell ever was The Red Shoes. What I like about Powell so much is his theatricality, almost staginess at times (So I guess Rosenbaum dislikes him too). In Black Narcissus the imagery is so strong that it fascinates me with its lack of subtlety, but not in a bad sense, like flash editing in an action film, but a feeling of not being shy about showing strong emotion visually.

Blimp has the same feeling at times. The World War One battle locales are clearly indoor sets and so on but the story is sweeping and grand and features three great performances: The two I've mentioned by Livesy and Walbrook and the third being Deborah Kerr playing three different women in Candy's life.

Make sure you see the Criterion DVD as, believe it or not, there are still a few copies floating around of the botched Blimp, edited down by an hour and with its flashback framework completely removed.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.17.07 - 10:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really appreciate your wonderful dedication to one of my favourite performances and actors. Walbrook is unfortunately an actor who has been forgotten by time. Even when The Red Shoes is mentioned, the sets, the colours and the dancing are mentioned rarely Walbrook's brilliant and complex performance.

Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger are probably my favourite filmmakers. They manage to so effectively merge ideals of British culture, not only in terms of values but stage tradition (their films are incredibly theatrical in terms of acting and design, however the films are incredibly cinematic. Just looking at The Red Shoes ballet, one of the greatest musical sequences I've ever seen on screen). Thanks to DVD they seem to be gaining more of a following, although I still think it's a long time to come before they are classed among the all time greats where I believe they should be.
Justine | | Email | 08.27.07 - 3:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right now at least, they are my favorite filmmakers as well. I say right now only because I don't know if I have a permanent favorite overall but I do know that in the last few months I have been kind of obsessed with them. My most recent viewing was Black Narcissus which is why I mentioned it in my previous comment. The use of color is extraordinary! When Sister Ruth applies her lipstick, when she collapses in the cabin, and that look on her face at the climax when she swings open the door - WOW! The drama of it all just overwhelmed me and I plan on watching it again this week.

Powell and Pressburger truly do need wider acceptance. And yes, The Red Shoes had me hypnotized when I saw it for the first time. Anton Walbrook is superb and seeing him there first made his turn as the naive, then embittered, then resigned man in Colonel Blimp seem even more impressive.

I'll promote them to anyone who will listen.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 9:02 pm |

Hitchcock Birthday Comments

2008-08-13T22:25:00.000-04:00

I enjoyed reading this and cheers to Hitch on his birthday!

My only complaint is:
Goofiest Hitchcock Film: (tie) Spellbound (1945) and Family Plot (1976)

Goofy!?! Okay... maybe just a little bit.

I really love Spellbound though and I don't think it's gets the credit it deserves. Or maybe I'm just blinded by Gregory Peck's beauty? I find myself defending the movie a lot, but I love the way it's shot and Dali's contribution is amazing, plus it has a great Bernard Herrmann score. It's one of my favorite Hitchcock films, but I have many.

Family Plot IS a goofy film, but it's also a lot of fun and I think Hitch was signing out with a smile and a wink.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 2:50 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I'm thinking about things like a colleague forcing a kiss on Ingrid, all the Freud talk spoken so earnestly and the whole analysis of his dream that leads us through the film.

Now, when I call something goofy it doesn't mean I think it's bad. By my defining parameters I've just given for Spellbound one could also label Vertigo as pretty goofy at times too.

The Hitchcock films I think are sub-par are Under Capricorn and later efforts like Topaz and Torn Curtain.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 7:59 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? No mention of Marnie? It would have been my pick if there was a "most kinky" category.
Hedwig | | Email | Homepage | 08.16.07 - 8:13 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose I could have done that, you're right. Or something with horses. Kim Morgan did a great write up on the women in Hitchcock movies on his birthday where she highlights Tippi Hedren in Marnie. Check it out here:
Kim And Tippi: Hitchcock's Birds
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.16.07 - 9:45 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes I sit and try to imagine what Hitchcock's movie would turn out like today if he were still alive and directing and who he would have in them... it hurts my brain a little to think about that though, but wouldn't it be wonderful?
Jonathan | | Email | Homepage | 08.17.07 - 11:15 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Jonathan, glad to see you here! You know that's funny you say that because a little game I often play in my head is who would have starred in what movies had they been made in different time? I may even put up a compilation of my suggestions(?) on the site here.

Funny that I would get this comment from you as I wrote some nice words about you just a minute ago on Self-Styled Siren. If you haven't given it a look yet please do.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.17.07 - 11:52 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey! I am a faithful reader of Kim's, it's actually thanks to her recommendation that I became interested in watching Marnie; I ended up just as fascinated as she is. Thanks though. There are so many good and interesting film blogs, it's sometimes hard to keep track of them (long live netvibes, and all other rss readers). I greatly admire the Self-Styled Siren too.

Anyway, your feed is in my netvibes page too now, so expect more comments from me from now on!
Hedwig | | Email | Homepage | 08.17.07 - 1:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, your feed is in my netvibes page too now, so expect more comments from me from now on!

I look forward to it. And I look forward to your "The problem with Spielberg". He's got a lot to love and hate so I'm interested in what you have to say. I could you give you a few problems I have with him myself but I will reserve that for your site after you publish your piece.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.17.07 - 10:52 pm | #

Barry Lyndon Comments

2008-08-13T22:23:00.000-04:00

I enjoyed reading this! I love this scene and you did a great job of describing it. I haven't seen Barry Lyndon in 18 years and your write-up made me want to revisit it again.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.07 - 3:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much! I appreciate the positive feedback from someone whose site and writing I enjoy so much.

Jonathan
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.07 - 4:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wild Commentaries Comments

2008-08-13T22:21:00.001-04:00

Excellent response to Rosenbaum's piece. You've performed a wonderful service for those of us lacking the intellectual rigor with which to dispute Rosenbaum's troublesome arguments.
Jon | | Email | 08.05.07 - 6:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the support. I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling the NY Times article was a bit "off" shall we say.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.07 - 6:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Jonathan,
I liked your post very much. I'm glad we see the same manipulation in Rosenbaum's tactics. I'm not totally crazy then.
You're right, Rosenbaum is a great critic. But this time is not an honorable example of what he does best...
HarryTuttle | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.07 - 7:07 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your thoughts.

Great nom de plume by the way. I've always loved DeNiro's character in Brazil - a renegade duct repairman, literally and figuratively tinkering with the inner workings of the system.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.07 - 8:59 am | #

Luck of Ginger Coffey Comments

2008-08-13T22:18:00.001-04:00

Hello Jonathan!

I just wanted to stop by your blog and say hi, as well as thank you for the link exchange.

I've been watching and reviewing some of Kershner's early films (A Fine MAdness and S*P*Y*S) lately myself and enjoying them. My favorite Kershner film is still The Eyes of Laura Mars, but I've never seen The Luck of Ginger Coffey and it sounds really interesting. Great review! You've made me curious about seeing the film myself.
Cinebeats | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.07 - 1:06 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly,

Thanks for the comment. I enjoy your site very much. I came to it by way of Dennis' SLIFR. I enjoy the sites that give me an historical perspective like yours and Dennis' (and several others).
While I certainly do famous films here (like The Right Stuff recently and Barry Lyndon coming on Monday) I try to highlight underseen films and performances, or at least if their well-known, undervalued.
Thanks for your link as well,

Jonathan
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.07 - 3:38 pm |

Myth of a Nation Comments

2008-08-13T22:13:00.001-04:00

Jonathan, this is as fine and convincing a consideration of Birth of a Nation as I've read in a long time. I remember having some of these same arguments with film professors, in the context of both Leni Reifenstahl and (believe it or not) Buddy Holly. Some of the same folks who would condemn Riefenstahl for Triumph of the Will and for being in bed (metaphorically speaking) with Hitler strangely had no problem with Griffith's film, the main reasons being its innovations and, as you state, its primacy in the foundation of film history. But as you suggest, style, especially in a film that codifies and expounds on social history in such an inflammatory manner, cannot be separated from content, nor should it be. And you strongly get at the roots of what's wrong with the argument of glorifying Nation for its innovations. A friend of mine argued after seeing The Buddy Holly Story and objecting to its praise of the musician for some of the technical and stylistic ornamentation Holly brought to country-rock music. His argument-- if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. The counter argument was, of course, that in the course of this biopic it was absurd to take points away for celebrating recognized historical achievement within the pop music form. But taken out of this context, he was right, and so too would anyone be who might suggest that film history would be only slightly altered had Birth of a Nation not come along. It is Griffith's genius as a director that both makes Nation worth considering and also makes it a specious achievement.

I loved the Okrent quote too. A high point in a brilliant documentary.

I'm looking forwartd to digging back through your archives. You're definitely starting out strong!
Dennis Cozzalio | | Email | Homepage | 07.22.07 - 11:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis,

Thank you for the kind and motivating words. And I like the Buddy Holly statement. It is true that popular music would have progressed along roughly the same lines had there been no Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry or Beatles because someone else would have simply taken their place but that doesn't mean you shouldn't celebrate the fact that they are the ones who did do it first. As long as one remembers first doesn't always mean best. The Beatles' "Flying" was one of the first uses of a synthesizer and... well...let's just say it's not widely known for a reason.

The Okrent quote, along with his statement about imagining if Cezanne and Beethoven were the same person in regards to the Babe, has always stayed with me and it seemed a natural fit.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.23.07 - 2:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What an outstanding commentary! I have so felt the same way, but was never able to articulate why. You have done it with reason and heart. Racism doesn't even try to wear a mask in this film, it is blatant and ugly and in one's face. I agree, we need to take a wholistic approach when interpreting art, with substance over form, content over technique. - Lisa
Lisa Lindsey | | Email | 08.09.07 - 12:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you Lisa.

I appreciate your kind words. The Birth of a Nation has for too long been given special treatment by separating content and technique, a sly trick and a dishonest one. Painting, literature, music and film and all other art must be more than technique. I can learn watercolor technique from the local community college's art class but that doesn't mean I'm Cezanne. I wonder if the critics and historians who praise Nation for its technique would have the same praise in the art world for Thomas Kincaide? Or would they argue that painting must be more than technique? I'm betting they would go with the latter argument. I would further bet they wouldn't even see the irony.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.10.07 - 8:47 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find the film offensive, calculating, and incredibly dull. I am glad that you put the work into an argument I could have written, but chose not to. (I have an M.A. in cinema, but Birth is a film I choose to avoid now that I've seen it only a single time.) I decry at a lot, but never with the sort of detail and mythbusting you put to it. Thanks for a great article. I'd love to see the film dethroned and given about the level of respect as Mississippi Burning.

Note that when Griffith replicates the photo of the Senate, he uses a dissolve as though he is covering his tracks, since the reference photograph was an empty courthouse, while the antics of the people are pure and simple propaganda not derived from any photograph.
Scott Andrew Hutchins | | Email | 11.29.07 - 5:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that when Griffith replicates the photo of the Senate, he uses a dissolve as though he is covering his tracks, since the reference photograph was an empty courthouse, while the antics of the people are pure and simple propaganda not derived from any photograph.

Great point Scott. There's a lot of bald-faced lying going on in this movie and Griffith's defense that he was only portraying history as it actually was is easily dismantled. It is a film that makes me sick when I see it (I've seen it more than once unlike you - you're smarter than I am). It is unbridled racism through and through and I am sick of it being given such a high level of respect when it is unnecessary and dishonest to do so. Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 11.29.07 - 5:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You write:
"What makes a film great? Can one separate content from technique and praise one but not the other?"

I think that's an important question worth exploring. I think the fact that you wrote such a long post on the subject proves how interesting a subject it is!

I'm thus dismayed to see you argue that the discussion is not one film students should be having. It seems to me you learned a lot about film in general and your feelings in particular in the creation of this post. Why should you have that opportunity while those who follow you should not?

Or do you expect students to attain the same enlightenment you did while applying the question to non-offensive films? It seems unlikely to me that they'd see much point to it, much less learn anything.
Jeff | | Email | 02.04.08 - 5:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff - Thanks for the comment. Since writing this I've had many different thoughts about how and what I should have written or did write. I commented on a film forum discussing it and realized that I probably had not made my points abundantly clear. I tried to clear up some of it there but I choose to let the original post stand warts and all in the hopes that comments like yours will allow me to "edit" it over time.

My main error in this post I believe is the muddled way in which I state that the film should not be taught as a great film but within a sociological context. It is an error I should correct and will by the addition of a few words. When I write, THE BIRTH OF A NATION should never be forgotten. It should be taught in history classes and sociology classes to educate people on the power of racial myth, the power of hatred. It is as important an historical artifact as the Nazi propaganda films of the forties and has enormous historical value. But it should not be taught in film class anymore

I should be writing:

THE BIRTH OF A NATION should never be forgotten. It should be taught in film history classes and sociology classes to educate people on the power of racial myth, the power of hatred. It is as important an historical artifact as the Nazi propaganda films of the forties and has enormous historical value. But it should not be taught in film class anymore as a great film.

My main problem with the teaching of the film is the separation of content and technique and teaching it as a masterpiece. It is a masterpiece technically but technically is not all there is to a film. Anyway, the point you bring up seems to be the main point of contention in discussions on this post elsewhere and it is not what I intended so I shall go ahead and make the edit.

Thank you for finally giving me the impetus to do so with your well stated comment.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 02.04.08 - 7:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, I agree with you completely on Birth of a Nation, but I would like to respectfully disagree on the Ken Burns moment that you refer to. Ty Cobb was nobody's hero, but he was certainly not the singular black mark of baseball history. To blame the rampant racism, inhumanity, and violence of our past on a southern ballplayer who happened to be full of anger is to misrepresent the scale and gravity of the problem. Further comments:

http://kaweah.com/blog/2008/06/2...b-all-american/
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.27.08 - 8:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan, that's a good write up of Cobb on your site. I don't disagree with you about Cobb not being the only bad apple or disagree that there was rampant racism all around. It's just that for the purposes of comparison, Birth of a Nation is a giant of a film in cinema history and Cobb is a giant figure in baseball history. There are plenty of films more racist than Birth of a Nation. I mentioned a few in a post on the Race Cinema of the teens through the fifties, films that used slurs in their titles, films that reduced black characters to more horrific stereotypes than Griffith did. But they're not Birth of a Nation, they're not examples of filmmaking excellence with a bad moral core.

While there may have been and continue to be plenty of bastards in baseball none of them have the astonishing record making accomplishments of Cobb. That's why I think Okrent singles him out as "the black mark," because he cannot be ignored. Even a player as great as Rogers Hornsby, who was a notorious bastard, can be easily brushed aside if necessary in conversations about the pinnacle of baseball accomplishment but Cobb cannot and so he must be dealt with and as such, becomes the black mark that Okrent was referring to. If Hornsby had been just a little bit better, had just a few more accomplishments, maybe Okrent would have spoken of two black marks.

That's the problem with The Birth of a Nation. While Hollywood produced multiple films with racial stereotypes from the tens to the fifties, none have the historical stature of that movie. So even though there are plenty of examples of racism in the early history of filmmaking, Birth of a Nation is the one we must deal with, because it is so brilliant technically that it simply cannot be ignored if studying early cinema technique. If it had been made incompetently or haphazardly it wouldn't matter. But it wasn't so it's film history's black mark.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 06.27.08 - 11:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi again Jonathan.

I don't want to permit my revulsion at Okrent's righteous indignation to overshadow the value of your general argument. My particular concern is that there may be a need for more skepticism involved in the cinematographic merits of "The Birth of a Nation." The possibility that the early popularity of the film's message may have somehow given it the exposure it needed to gain such an unshakable place in the pantheon of film.

That said, there is great benefit to its existence as an unwitting but eloquent testimony to the deep racism that lurks throughout American history. For that reason, it's a must-see.

About the ubiquity of racism in American film, I remember an Abbott & Costello film that seemed terribly racist.

Then there's Kevin Costner's great white liberal hope in Dances with Wolves, who was lucky enough to find himself a white girl amidst all those Sioux squaws. "Going Indian" is one thing, but I guess "going squaw" was just going too far. Yes, I'm afraid I'm one of the two members of Gary Larson's dread DLDWWS ("didn't like dances with wolves society").

Keep the thoughtful entries coming, and please pardon my nitpicking.
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.28.08 - 11:08 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm. Looks like I could use a proofreader. Here's a correction, complete with complete sentences, for what it's worth:

My particular concern is that there may be a need for more skepticism involved in the assessment of the cinematographic merits of "The Birth of a Nation." There is a possibility that the early popularity of the film's message may have somehow given it the exposure it needed to gain such an unshakable place in the pantheon of film.

It's all too easy for irrational opinions to become doctrines of history, even among the most respected of authorities.
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.28.08 - 11:28 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...there is great benefit to its existence as an unwitting but eloquent testimony to the deep racism that lurks throughout American history. For that reason, it's a must-see." I completely agree. Like I said, it should not be forgotten. It's an amazing historical record, not of reconstruction, but of the time it was made. And one more thing...
"Then there's Kevin Costner's great white liberal hope in Dances with Wolves"
I can't stand Dances with Wolves! Now, that movie everyone could forget about and it would be just fine with me. Bleh!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 06.28.08 - 6:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I can't stand Dances with Wolves!"
- Jonathan Lapper

The world is not such a lonesome place anymore!
Dan Jensen | | Email | Homepage | 06.30.08 - 11:02 am | #

Transcendental Meditation Comments

2008-08-12T21:49:00.000-04:00

The critical phrase that bugs me beyond all others is "transcends the genre." To me, this smacks of an inherent snobbiness a little like what you lay out here: that genre is a limit, and that if something operates within a genre it is inherently limited. Scott and Tracy personified this argument in the quotes Jim posted, and I kind of wanted to strangle the both of them. (why would you willingly limit the kinds of movies you enjoy and learn from?) I prefer to say a given movie personifies its genre.

I don't necessarily equate seriousness with greatness--behold my defense of SPEED RACER primarily because it is so daringly visual--but I do think there's plenty of material to explore with Batman that TDK does, and does very well. Yeah, it's very serious, but if it was merely pretentious and self-consciously "dark" it would fall flat.

What we may be missing in these surface skirmishes (that a few people point out in Emerson's post) is that what makes TDK work is actually pretty conventional: A precisely calibrated crime story, a great cast giving excellent performances, virtuoso direction, excellent set design, well-choreographed action, parallels to modern times, and (yes) the willingness to treat the material as if it's worth doing.

I feel like TDK has changed things for superhero movies, or anyway it should. But I also think filmmakers (and more importantly, studio execs) are going to walk away from TDK with the wrong message... just as comic writers and publishers did when Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore and David Gibbons' Watchmen hit in the mid 80's: that folks just want grim-n-gritty right down to the bone, and never mind all the conventional merits listed above. I hope I'm wrong, but frankly I have no reason to think I am.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 12:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, well, I don't know where to begin, because this is a topic near and dear to my heart.

I suppose I'll start with The Dark Knight, a film I loved, and have seen twice now. As far as I'm concerned, it does stay very true to the genre, because the Batman comics I read growing up were full of the same sort of darkness and seriousness that Nolan brings to his film. I'm not well enough versed in comics history to know if that has pretty much always been how Batman was supposed to be portrayed, and people who think otherwise are simply confused by the few times the comics veered from that (I'm looking at you, the 1960s!), or if Frank Miller really is the guy who kicked it off, but even if the latter is the case, it's been an important part of the character for over twenty years. But given what I do know about comics, and Batman, I suspect that darkness was always at least meant to be there.

The comments for the Scanners article are very interesting, and pretty heartening for the most part, because most of them agree with you, Jonathan (and me). But one guy does say about the Spider-Man films that the line "With great power comes great responsibility" is "pretty unforgivable". His reasoning is that at that point the filmmakers are stating their theme, which this commenter views as a giant sin. Well, I'm sorry, but that line is Spider-Man, it's one of the iconic lines from the comic, and it's one of the things that comic books do. If you're making a movie about Spider-Man, and you choose to cut that line because you think it's gilding the lily, then you shouldn't be allowed to make a Spider-Man movie in the first place.

And Jonathan, I absolutely hate it when a critic says something "transcends the genre". Oh, how it steams me. And I truly believe that it can only be said by people who don't understand the genre (whatever it might be) they're dealing with. Any genre you can name is potentially far more rich than pretty much any critic realizes. Here's a list of movies that reside very comfortably in the SF genre: 2001, Soylent Green, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Planet of the Apes, A.I., Blade Runner, Alien, Forbidden Planet, Solaris, A Clockwork Orange, Dark Star.... All of these are completely of the genre, and are firmly in SF's long tradition. There's no "transcending" going on, just because a critic happens to like one and dislike another, or because the critic is ignorant of SF as a whole.

Stepping out of what is generally perceived to be a genre's formula also doesn't count as transcending, because by and large I believe that the idea of a given genre having a formula is bogus. If someone reading this rambling comment disagrees with me, then please, tell me, what is the "formula" for SF? Or horror? Or Westerns? The only genre I can think of that does seem to legitimately have a formula is the detective story (the detective story specifically, as opposed to Crime, the umbrella genre beneath which there are numerous sub-genres). And ironically, it's the detective genre that probably has gotten the most critical love over the years.

Finally, Jonathan -- and this is probably a bit off-topic -- while I wouldn't have picked Eugene O'Neill to plug into your "________ of Horror" formula, the idea behind someone trying to aim that high in horror is one I whole-heartedly support. As I think I've made clear, I don't believe in the idea that genre equals formula. While I readily acknowledge that brilliant work can be done within formulas, I think that in the case of horror the belief that there is a formula that must be adhered to is slowly killing the genre. In literature, there are a few people stepping up to the plate to show what horror can do and be. In film, I don't think there's anyone. If someone out there wants to be the Eugene O'Neill of Horror, then I say "Have at it."
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 12:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken - I knew you were the right man for the job. Since I haven't seen it yet, but am very much looking forward to, I can only go by the current fray I'm reading about and it seems that so many are going about it the opposite of how you and I are: that somehow it's great because it's so "above" the genre itself.

One thing I have always liked about the DC adaptations over the Marvel ones is a lack of fear in the face of brightly colored tights. When DC puts up Superman he's got the cape and the red underwear. When Marvel puts up X-Men it's got to be dark leather rather than blue and yellow (which they even derisively make fun of in the first movie). Now Marvel has done the costume thing too (Spiderman) but for the most part I get the feeling from Marvel adaptations that they're a little embarrassed that these are "only" comic book characters whereas DC doesn't seem to give a damn. Of course, as such, Marvel, with the exception of the Batman character, has the "cooler" reputation but I think DC, in both comic and movie form, sticks closer to the true spirit of the genre.

So I think my fear is that DC will start falling into the Marvel psyche and start making everything "serious" until we get Superman just wearing a tee-shirt and torn jeans.

Anyway, that's all a little off topic in a way, but it's in line with what you're saying, that the wrong messages are going to be taken from the new crop until we've got nothing but down and dirty and no more fun.

P.S. - Along the costume lines, another thing Marvel does is make the costume "realistic" ala Iron Man, where everything has a purpose and that's why Stark created it. With Batman, there's really no reason to have a cowl with pointy ears but they do it anyway and don't try to justify the look or feel of the costume to make it more realistic to the audience. Even though this fray centers around TDK I think it's the Marvel adaptations that have led us here due to their general unease with the fact that their comic book characters are in fact, comic book characters.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - I've always felt, like you, that people who say something "transcends" the genre don't understand the genre in the first place. I guess one of the things that bugs me is a fear I detect in certain films of embracing the genre, and when they don't, people who don't understand the genre start calling it a masterpiece. The impression I get from you and Ken is that TDK does not shy away from the genre at all (like some of the Marvel examples I gave above) but it seems there are a lot of bandwagon jumpers who are praising it for the opposite reasons.

Since I was writing the first comment while you were writing yours, tell me, do you get bothered at all when a comic book movie is afraid to be just that? I still remember the X-Men line about the blue and yellow suits and for some reason it really bugged me. First of all, it's a slap in the face to the original creators and secondly how unlikely are the suits worn by Superman and Spiderman? Yet, if you put it in a movie and don't make fun of it in any way the audience accepts it but if you have Peter Parker wear a hoodie instead and make some flippant remark about a blue and red webbed leotard then the audience is going to look at the classic Spiderman costume derisively as well.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill: I'm no scholar, but I'll attempt to address your assessment of Batman's seriousness. And yes, since the early 70's (but kicked into high gear with the Miller book, and his later book Year One, which HEAVILY influenced story elements in both Nolan movies) Batman has been a pretty grim guy, and his "Dark Knight" persona was really created. He was a goof in the 60's, but comics history is so convoluted from the late 30's to the 60's that it's hard to pin down any real "canon" interpretation of the character up until... well... the 70's.

Marvel is indeed seen as the "cooler" company of the two; DC is older (more or less) and its tentpole characters are more nakedly mythical in nature. Marvel has the advantage at seeming more immediately contemporary, but the DC stable is archetypal. The two most-jazzed audiences I have ever been apart of--in ANY movie--were the original Burton Batman film and TDK... and the latter was a critic's screening, where the audience more typically looks like the population of a morgue, not psyched-up fans.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I loved your comments about the difference between the DC and Marvel movies, regarding costumes, and, with the exception of the Spider-Man films, you're absolutely right. But what I loved about Sam Raimi's first two films (and I'll even confess some affection for the third one) is that they're so unapologetic about their comic book roots.

I think the two Fantastic Four films are so bad for pretty interesting reasons (at least, interesting in the context of this discussion). On one hand, they do sort of revel in their comic book roots. But unlike The Dark Knight you never get the sense that anyone involved felt that those roots were ever worth taking seriously. Dr. Doom is changed from probably the best villain in Marvel comics to one of the limpest, least interesting villains I've seen in a really long time, because nobody cared to engage with the character as he already existed, because that would take time, skill and respect. It's far easier to just tear out his guts.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 1:30 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, my previous comment was directed towards Jonathan.

Ken - I don't know 1970s Batman, so I'm surprised to learn that the darkness we now see as inherent to the character started then. And yeah, Year One -- a great and largely unknown (outside of comic fandom) comic -- was clearly the unofficial source for Batman Begins, while Moore and Boland's The Killing Joke takes that spot in this sequel.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 1:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, having not seen it yet, that what you said is probably the best explanation. When you talk about The Fantastic Four failing because it didn't bother to take the subject matter seriously I think that nails it on the head. TDK seems to take its subject matter seriously and Spiderman did as well. And going way back to Superman and Superman II it was the same. There were plenty of jokes at Clark's expense but it's evident from the first frame that everyone concerned took the comic book roots of Superman very seriously indeed. Almost reverential at times.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see that on Dennis's "marquee" sidebar that he gave The Dark Knight two stars. I wasn't expecting that. When are you going to be able to weigh in? After it comes out on DVD?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 1:55 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken and Bill - Either of you ever watch the Batman serials from the forties. I've seen a few on YouTube - my god they're awful.

As for Batman's darkness I don't know much of anything before Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. But then it wasn't just Batman then. I remember reading all kinds (my roommate was an avid collector) and from The Watchmen to V to even DC Death of Superman in 92 everything in comics seemed to go darker.

I never cared much for the Burton films to tell the truth, although nothing - NOTHING - could be worse than the Schumacher films. Oyyyy!!!!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 1:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When are you going to be able to weigh in? After it comes out on DVD?

Here's a quote from Seymour Skinner: "Now she wants to get out of the bath! I'll be back in three hours. Maybe sooner. But almost certainly longer."
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen TDK, but I was a comic book collector (Spider-Man mainly) in my teens and went to my share of Comicons, which weren't the grand affairs they are now. What's happened to comics, IMHO, is that they've become big business and with that, aspirations for them are higher.

I was very good friends with Mike Gold, one of the founders of First Comics, which helped pioneer the graphic novel concept. I can tell you, with love, that Mike was a very ambitious fellow who wanted respect. He's got it, too, and I'm glad. But he took a kids' fantasy world too far into the real world. And now, just like the comedies that never get Best Picture Oscars, movies like TDK want to be considered more than fluff.

All the seriousness of purpose, however, will not overcome the desire for studios to reward their prestige projects, to burnish their own legacies as people to reckon with. And they won't want to do it with a comic-book movie.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:01 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really enjoyed Burton's first film at the time, and I would be very interested to see it again now, after so many years.

I know that nowadays Burtons Batman Returns is enjoying something of a critical renaissance, for lack of a better word, due to Pfeiffer's performance, and the "gleefullly" dark tone (not sure who I'm quoting there, but I'm sure it's someone). I, for one, think it's one of Burton's worst films (and I think he agrees), and don't understand what movie these people are watching.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - That's exactly the problem with so many genre films. In aspiring to be great they end up being not good at all. Things like My Man Godfrey or The Thin Man (two William Powell favorites of mine) never, at least as far as I can see, aspired to be masterworks of the cinema but instead did comedy and did it well. And we all know that they are plenty of Best Picture winners that can't hold a candle to them but history has recorded their excellence nonetheless. So I think you're right - too many people try too hard to make their films or comic books "important" whereas if you just let it flow naturally from the genre you could produce something great - and who cares if it doesn't win Best Picture and tackle the meaning of life?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:14 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But he took a kids' fantasy world too far into the real world."

But what does that mean, exactly? It's like saying that Ralph Bakshi or Katsuhiro Otomo (or whoever) took animated films too far into the real world. Comics are a medium, not a genre.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:14 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - I remember sort of liking both movies when they came out then re-watching on DVD years later and being thoroughly disappointed. I too thought "Batman Returns" was the better of the two until watching them again and seeing it as a mess - a big, stinking mess. And the first one seems quite ramshackle in it's exposition. It doesn't spend any time having fun with Batman's origins. None.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But he took a kids' fantasy world too far into the real world."

Great tagline (or trailer line) for a horror film in which some fantastical beings enter our world due to some comic collector's hubris.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hubris is always getting people into trouble. You'd think they'd learn.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Know why they don't learn? Hubris.

It's a vicious cycle.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:26 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great topic here Jonathan-

I agree that seriousness is not a qualifier for greatness. In fact, I think The Dark Knight (a film that I think is terrible, btw...) would have benefited had it NOT taking itself so seriously.

By trying to get weighty with us by drawing on a story about the bat man, Nolan just comes off as condescending. Not that a director CAN'T accomplish weightiness with such a cartoonish subject, but Nolan is a hack.

My beef with Nolan is that he doesn't FEEL like a Stanley Kubrick does, or, for that matter, as a Roger Corman does.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:29 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - You may not like Nolan, but I can't see how he qualifies as a hack. Or condescending(?).

I agree that Nolan doesn't feel like Kubrick or Corman (I think he feels like "Nolan"), but why does it have to be one or the other? Are those sensibilities the only vald approaches to...I don't know, movies, I guess?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Dark Knight (a film that I think is terrible, btw...)

I think someone just fired an opening volley. I haven't seen it yet but now I must and soon. I've heard and read some underwhelming reactions but terrible? Really? What felt terrible about it? Did you like the performances? How about the set design? Editing too herky jerky? Fill me in.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are those sensibilities the only vald approaches to...I don't know, movies, I guess?

I sure hope not. Hooray false dichotomies!
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know my blog partner Rod faults Nolan for having no talent for directing action sequences. The only part of the film he really liked was Ledger.

As for taking a kids' fantasy into the real world, I guess I mean that the mythology of comic books is meant to help children deal with their lives. That's my theory of stories, in general. We need different stories at different times of our lives to negotiate new challenges (marriage, getting old, etc.). Comic books help the child who is told what to do most of the day feel powerful and more able to negotiate some of the frightening things that come his or her way.

I don't object to changing a form to something else, but doing so runs a risk of leaving the audience for comic books with nothing helpful to turn to.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nolan condescends specifically in the "boat sequence" when he places a prisoner as the moral center of a life or death moment. He doesn't dare reflect on the torn emotions of the guard holding the button, just goes to the wise old convict for truth. Lame, lifeless soap-boxing.

I think he's a hack because he hasn't made a quality film, yet he fashions suit jackets and comeovers like he's the next big thing. His skills are avergae, at best. I'm still waiting to feel something when I watch one of his films.

I didn't say Kubrick or Corman were the only valid approaches. I was simply naming two different artists who have accomplished greatness through serious (Kubrick) and goofball (Corman) formats.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 2:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - I don't share your theory of stories, though I certainly believe there's a place for that sort of thing in comics, and "Spider-Man", which you say you collected almost exclusively, certainly fits that bill. But what if a comic reader gets older, and grows out of that type of storytelling, but still enjoys the medium of comics? Any artistic medium needs variety, and comics has certainly achieved that, after much struggle.

I don't really read comics anymore, but I'm pretty sure the kinds of comics you talk about still exist. They also have to struggle in this new market, where darkness rules all, but they're out there.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 2:59 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - That boat sequence is an example, to me, of the film embracing its comic book roots, and I completely bought it. And if you buy the concept of the scene (and maybe you don't), why should he focus on the guard? The fact that one boat is made up almost entirely of prisoners is part of the point.

If you haven't been moved by any of his films (I've been moved, to some degree, by all of his films, save The Following, which I haven't seen), I obviously can't convince you that you should have been. But not liking someone's movies and thinking they're a hack aren't necessarily the same things. I can dislike someone's films, not be moved by it, and acknowledge that it's not hackwork. I can't understand how you can watch Nolan's films, whether you like them or not, and dismiss them as such.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea about the boat sequence so I can't say. Dammit! I knew I was going to end up shortchanging myself by starting this before having seen it. However, to aid in the conversation, here is Larry Aydlette's
take on the film. For those of you who've seen it, what do you think of what Larry says?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have The Following at home. This may prompt me to slide it into the DVD player.

And I hope some comic books like I grew up with still exist. I'd like to think there was some innocence left in the world.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harvey comics is still out there, or is Richie Rich now raping people?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please, Richie's the reason gentrification has taken over everywhere!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To my knowledge, Richie Rich comics continue to be rape-free. But even though I don't read comics anymore (not through a lack of desire, but rather, after a decade's absence from them, because I don't know where to begin), I still read about them, in blogs and so forth. One blogger, Chris Sims, frequently champions children's comics, though his website covers all bases.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody read Larry Aydlette's piece? It talks about Nolan's skills (or lack thereof) as a director. It's pretty short so it's a quick read. That's why I like Larry - knows how to say things quickly and cleanly.

And I just had a conversation not long ago with Neil Sarver about Harvey Comics (we both actually like their story telling brevity) oddly enough.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan - regarding Larry's take: well, I disagree with him, too. There's plenty of visual poetry in the film, my favorite example being the shot of the Joker hanging his head out of the window of a police cruiser. Another moment I really like is the very first helicopter shot of a glass skyscraper: as the camera moves in closer, one of the window's explodes outwards. I've never really seen that before.

And I love Michael Mann, but Larry compares The Dark Knight to Miami Vice...eeesh. No one will ever convince me that that one's anything but a giant, dull mess.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - Your comment just sunk in with me. Takes me a little while sometimes. So I should now start postulating on how Richie Rich has "raped" the lower classes of the inner city. I smell a dissertation!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well now, just like with No Country for Old Men, I feel I need to see this sooner rather than later. And here I figured it could wait. Stupid me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:29 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill: I'm actually internet pals with Sims -- he's going to be tickled to be mentioned here.

I don't object to changing a form to something else, but doing so runs a risk of leaving the audience for comic books with nothing helpful to turn to.

This is a very narrow definition of what comics are and can do, and hundreds or thousands of comic artists from the 1930's onward would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. You seem to be conflating Marvel superheroes with ALL comics, which is simply false, like saying all movies are Michael Bay pictures. Check out what DC/Vertigo is publishing sometime.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken - That was not my intention. I read all of them until I outgrew them. That's the salient point. I outgrew the need for those types of stories. I'm not sure I could connect with the comics of today because my childhood experiences formed my ideas about comic books. If they ARE serving the kind of storytelling purpose that I feel should be part of our formative years, then that's a very good thing. It seems, however, that TDK may be an indication that men aren't willing to put away their childish things (as the saying goes), but rather would like these superheroes to go with them into the future to keep instructing them on their lives. This may be more than the genre can take.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For which types of stories? The superhero stories aimed at kids? That's fine -- there's also superhero stories (and various kinds of stories told in the comic medium) for adults, too. The Super Serious Grim n' Gritty superhero comics we've been bombarded with since the mid 80's are a bit much to choke down, but to say there's NO NEED for them -- or that they only serve people who refuse to "grow up" -- does a massive disservice. If it's more than the superhero genre can take, it's been stretching its bounds almost since its birth.

And yes, there are still plenty of kids' comics. Plenty.

Jonathan: Certain sequences, some of them seemingly quite innocuous, stayed with me for days. Nolan is a perfectly fine "visual poet."
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been reading Sims for a long time now. I never comment, because I never have anything say, but his site is great, he's incredibly knowledgable about comics, and he's hilarious.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bill: I completely kick his ass at GTA4 online.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken - You certainly know more about the new generation of comics than I do. Perhaps, from the film world, a movie like Hancock is meant to be an adult superhero. I'm sorry, but I just don't relate to this concept. If I could get some idea of what purpose, besides entertainment, these adult-oriented superheroes serve, why people become fans, I'd understand.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 3:52 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - You read comics because the ones you read helped you through your childhood. That's great. But why on earth do you believe that an adult who still reads comics is somehow searching for "instruction"? I don't get that.

Another visual moment from TDK that I loved: Batman racing through the underground mall. That had a Michael Mann quality to it, now that I think about it.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 3:54 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could just C&P what I said at Emerson's...

Superheroes are archetypes. They are meant to represent ideas that literally duke it out for dominance, which is why it blows me away when people say superhero stories are too "on the nose" -- that's like saying slasher movies are just too darn focused on people dying. It's a mark of the genre.

If the idea of entities representing ideas interacting sounds familiar, it should! It's a notion that's been with us for a long, long time... which I think Hancock was actually going for, in its awkward way.

As for the insistence on "instruction," I share bill's bafflement. Superhero stories can have as many goals and uses as any other kind of story.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granted, I read very few superhero comics these days... not because I believe the genre as a whole to be unworthy, but because most of the people writing them just aren't doing a very good job at it.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said it yourself, Ken. Superheroes are archetypes. As a Jungian, I view archetypes a very powerful entities that instruct, not only on a conscious level but at a very organic, visceral level. Identification with an archetype--or its rejection--has a lot of consequences for how we conduct our lives. That's where I'm coming from.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wowee!!! I walk away for 45 minutes and you guys are up to 43 comments!!

Jonathan, you went away on purpose so you could make a big re-entrance like this, huh??

Haven't read Larry's take yet, but I will.

What I can say about Nolan visually is that I find him dull, repetitive, emotionless. Where Bill finds poetry I find mass market paperback.

To me Nolan stages his action and violence simply b/c he wants the audience to mouth "ooooh"s and "ahhhh"s. I feel nothing when his camera moves. It see nothing expressive in his designs. And Bill, respectfully, when I call him a hack, it is that... that there is nothing uniquely there about Nolan's vision yet people praise him as some new auteur. Maybe he's David Fincher jr, but I don't particularly care for Fincher, so...

I just don't want a well-oiled handyman, I want a handyman that has some soul, some juice, some life up under those fingernails!!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW... I hate to link drop on Jonathan's blog, but to maybe make this easier, my full take on TDK is here:

http://fox-tractorfacts.blogspot...ark- knight.html
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:15 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does Little Lotta fit into all of this?

My brother collected comics from just shortly after Stan Lee came up with Spidey and quite frankly I can tell you from reading them (he bought every Marvel comic available - every damn character) that they were just as innocuous as Harvey comics were in their own way. It wasn't until the late seventies that any kind of darkness or adultness started to creep in. I still remember reading the Spiderman where Stan is the guest host on Saturday Night Live and Spidey shows up - oh brother.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call it the creators growing up and the new blood in comics companies were those who had grown up on them. They "aged" the comics, but this was the silver age -- the Golden Age had already occurred, with plenty of maturing going on there, too. They just done got rebooted.

FACT ABOUT CHRIS SIMS: 2 or 3 nights of any given week, he IMs me at 11:30pm with "Ken, what should I post tomorrow?"
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - "Where Bill finds poetry I find mass market paperback."

Well, it all depends on which mass-market paperback you're talking about, doesn't it? Is "mass-market paperback" a genre now? You obviously see it as a mark of low quality, whereas I see it as a publishing format.

Most of what you say I can't argue against, because it's about your gut reaction versus mine. You see no soul, and I see plenty.

And Fox, are you now, or were you ever, a reader of comic books?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FACT ABOUT CHRIS SIMS: 2 or 3 nights of any given week, he IMs me at 11:30pm with 'Ken, what should I post tomorrow?'"

That doesn't surprise me at all. Most days, you can practically smell the desperation.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox, you link dropping bastard! Just kidding I don't care. By the way, back in the day they used to have this little fact feature (does anyone remember that) where Stan Lee would write these little blurbs about the characters, sometimes within the story itself. Anyway, I still remember his blurb that Spidey was the strongest of all Marvel superheroes, even stronger than the Hulk. I don't know why I always remembered that but I thought it was pretty cool. And... uh... it taught me a lot about life. Yeah, there we go.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACTS ABOUTS THE SIMS: I've never played it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACTS ABOUT WHIMS: I do things on them often.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:32 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan - I remember one time, back in the 80s, Marvel did this thing called "Assistant Editor's Month". The joke was that all the real editors were for some reason off-duty, and their assitants took over, which resulted in all sorts of wackiness, not to mention zaniness, getting into the comics. In that month's issue of "The Avengers", the Avengers were guests on Late Night with David Letterman. So they all went on the show and Letterman made fun of them. Then they got attacked. I don't remember by who. Arcade, probably.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:32 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - I remember that too! Ever read the Defenders? Man, Marvel really did come up with some wacky ass characters when you think about it. Dr. Strange still looks like the host of a Saturday late night horror serial to me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Mariner anyone? The guy wears a fish scale speedo. And his name is Namor. Uh huh.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill -

I don't read comics, and I can appreciate that may help explain the separation in our opinion. I certainly don't expect (or want) to change your feelings about TDK. In fact, having not liked it I am curious to hear more about why people DID like it.

Still, if I don't think it should matter what readers of novels think about their beloved once they see the film it's based on, basing the quality of a comic book film on how accurately it portrays it's source material rings false to me. The movie is the movie, the book is the book.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I read "The Defenders" a little bit. I bought that one if I liked the cover, but never on a regular basis. I remember Gargoyle, and Valkyrie, and...Moon Dragon? Was that one?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were about a billion Defenders at one time or another, including Moon Dragon.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - That's true, but some of the things you object to about The Dark Knight, such as the boat sequence, are the kind of thing that fits in perfectly with a comic book world, and if you're not used to it, or haven't developed a taste for it, from years of reading comics, then the chances of it not working for you on film increase. But that's not the movie's fault, or yours; it's simply the nature of the beast.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan - Oh, I used to love me some Sub-Mariner. You never knew whose side that guy was on! The giant sea robots or Captain America? Sub-Mariner could go either way.

Honestly, Sub-Mariner was (is?) an interesting character. All he cared about was protecting Atlantis and the oceans. If, in doing so, he helped the rest of the planet, fine. If doing so hurt the rest of the planet, fine.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:45 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to mention he was one of the original superheroes. Namor's been around a long, long time.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lapper-

Why don't you go see TDK now so you can join the fray?

In fact! If you hit 100 comments on this - your unofficial first day back! - then I will pay your way.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, like I said my brother started collecting these things before I was born. When I was in college I found the comics our mother hadn't thrown away and one of them was Spidey #7. Even in tattered condition the comic book store gave me a few hundred for it and several others I had (well, my brother had and I stole). My roommate had the comic guide that we took with us to make sure we weren't ripped off. And then I probably blew it on pizza and beer for the next semester. Oh well.

Time for my stupid commute home now. That sucks.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken - Really? I knew that he's the one who discovered Captain America frozen up there in the Arctic, but I think I'd always assumed he was created some time in the 60s. How old is that character?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:51 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - I shall see it soon I promise. Once something hits a fever pitch like this I find a way to ignore life and see it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:51 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - According to Wikipedia Namor was created in 1939. So he's up there with Superman in age.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. I had no idea.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be honest, me neither until now. I thought he came about with The Defenders. Okay now I really have to go get my damn bus.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:54 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment count is what you get when you talk about comic book stuff, man. I should've warned you.

You know who was a great mass-market paperback writer? Charles Dickens.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:54 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken - So true on both counts. I'll pick it back up later.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken - My point exactly.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 4:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All right, chill on the "mass paper-back" guys. It was intended to mean that you can find many copies of them all over the place. If it was a poor analogy... my hands are up!

Sheesh... apparently, when you start a comic book thread you also attract sensitive fan boys. (And let me pre-emptively catch you here... THAT'S INTENDED AS AN INSULT!)
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry -- I thought Bill and I were challenging your argument on its merits.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argh... I meant that's NOT intended as an insult.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, too late. Ten paces at dawn.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but..."sensitive fan boys" is kind of condescending anyway, isn't it?
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 5:14 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me add: Ken and I really are challenging your argument on its merits, Fox. We liked the movie, you didn't, and we're discussing the whys and why-nots. I don't know where sensitivity comes into it. I don't know where "fan boy" comes into it, either, unless the fact that we are, or have been, comics fans is all it takes to get that label.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 5:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes it is, bill.

I'd also contend that I was "attracted" here... considering Jonathan asked for my input in the opening graf.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I'm here every day, assuring Jonathan that he's not alone. So I was going to be around whether his post was about The Dark Knight or consisted entirely of an old photograph from Life magazine showing Nelson Rockefeller goosing Myrna Loy.
bill | | Email | 07.28.08 - 5:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to be clear, the mass paper-back "argument" was meant to imply that Nolan's brand of cinema can be found everywhere and often.

Beyond that I feel I made enough of my argument - you can read my review of it for more detail. Basically, like Fincher, Nolan is technically proficient but artistically deficient.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 5:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Fan Boys and Condescending Foxsters. Ken, you saying you wouldn't have shown up had I not mentioned you - I'm hurt, I thought you liked Cinema Styles. Hold on a second, I have to go cry. ... ...

Okay I'm back. Bill - I'm doing the Myrna Loy goose photo next week; thanks for giving it away!

Fox - I'll see it as soon as I can and make my FINAL JUDGMENT FOR OR AGAINST YOU! How will I rule? Only time will tell.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 7:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - I checked out Larry's post again and Dennis had commented saying he liked it "much less" than Larry did and will be putting up something soon on it so we can carry the argument over there.

Fox - Keep your eyes peeled for it. Sounds like Dennis is on your side so you'll have more company.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 8:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds good... perhaps we can send a friend request to Chris Nolan and see if he'll join us too! No?

Actually... you know what would be fun? Have you ever been to Bloggingheads.tv where political bloggers do debates/discussions over a little camera attachment? They're usually chummy and not obnoxious like cable TV debates. It would be a blast to see that reach into the film blogger world.

However, I barely know how to download a MP3, so figuring out a camera might take me well into Batman 3 (v 2.0).

Lastly, I don't mean "fan boy" in a disparaging way. I consider myself a geek, nerd etc. so I would never call someone a fan boy as an insult... I might use it to power-up a dis like, say, "elitist fan boy!" but...
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 12:04 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and ... OHHHHH.... it's 12:05 and you didn't hit the 100 mark Jonathan!

Good show, though, good show.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 12:05 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if you'll ever get all the way down to the 88th comment, but I just needed to tell you that this post is phenomenal for a few reasons.

First, I agree with everything you say. Second, you said it all so well. You kept it simple, you kept it clear, and you got all your points across. Third, you ended with a kick ass quote. Love it.

Just thought I should let you know how much I enjoyed reading this.

Scott
he-shot-cyrus.blogspot.com
Scott | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 2:06 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - You elitist fan boy, thank you for the comment. I would love to do a little "tv show" for the blogs just as soon as I can figure out how to do it with my face blacked out to protect my identity from co-workers. And my voice - we'd have to use one of those voice modulaters so it would sound like Darth Vader was in on the debate.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 7:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott - Thanks so much, I'm glad you agree (it's always better when we all agree). And nothing, NOTHING, can beat the string of quotable quotes that stream from Chuck's mouth in Planet of the Apes: "It's a madhouse, a madhouse!!!" "Get your stinkin' paws off of me..."To hell with the scarecrows" "My name is Taylor" and so on. What a movie - a great sci-fi movie! All hail genre!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 7:57 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HA! You've given me the idea to use Christian Bale's awful Batman voice for debates.

Ooo... and you could just put on one of those cheap, plastic Joker halloween masks to hide your identity.

The theatrics of this will totally "attract" the fan boys!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 10:21 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen TDK yet. As far as genre films in general, too often the people who rave about a film transcending its genre have little knowledge or appreciation of the genre. Sometimes the self-importance of certain films makes me want to run to see something without pretensions. It's harder for me to even want to step into a multiplex when every movie is suppose to be "an event".

Just a thought rattling in my brain: With comic book films being the rage, and Stan Lee having a certain amount of power in Hollywood, why isn't he finally making the film he wrote with Alain Resnais? Maybe turn the directorial reigns to Michel Gondry.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 11:13 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why couldn't Resnais still make it? He's still around, and he's still making movies.

But I don't think Lee really has any power in Hollywood. He pops up in cameos in all the Marvel films, but he has nothing to do with the making of them.
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 11:30 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe not but he's got tons of money. And I'm totally out of the loop on this one Peter: What movie did Stan Lee write with Resnais? What's it about?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 12:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, it was going to be called The Monster Maker, and it sounds like it was going to be a little bit like Sullivan's Travels. From what I can tell, through skimming articles, is that it was going to be about a low-budget horror film producer who became fed-up with the work he was doing, and, in an attempt to gain the respect of the adult world, decides to make a movie about pollution. The main difference between this film and Sullivan's Travels is that the hero of the Lee/Resnais film would not discover that his monster films did have worth. It atually sounds really preachy.

Here's the article I found:

http://www.tcj.com/253/f_stanlee.html
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 12:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the link Bill. I read the article and wow, Stan should stay out of show business forever. The closing narration for The Monster Maker is just plain awful and the Godspell-like Thor musical? Or that Silver Surfer production - "I've caught the ultimate honky"??!!?! Oh vey!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I didn't even read about the Thor or Silver Surfer projects. I just scanned the article until I found information about The Monster Maker.

So, yeah, it sounds like Stan Lee should probably not do...things.
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 1:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stan Lee's a mascot, nothing more. The only good ideas he really had he came up with in conjunction with someone else.

Sorry we didn't get you over 100 comments.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, yes, the ending to Monster Maker would need to be reworked, but I like the basic premise, especially if the film took place in the Seventies. The reason I suggested Gondry is because Resnais' most recent films suggest he wouldn't be interested in revisiting this project. Gondry's Science of Sleep is something of a goof on Je T'aime, Je T'aime, plus he loves what appears to be low-tech special effects.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well the polution theme alone would probably get it some interest today so I think they could have it take place in the present but it does sound preachy like Bill said. If someone took the basic premise and then redid all the writing, throwing out Lee's stuff, it might work.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 1:32 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100!!!!
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 1:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan -

You should just keep updating your blog in this one comment section. It's turning into an extraordinary scroll of commentary at this point so why stop it???

Think of it... Cinema Styles entire second year all fit into one post. It would be groundbreaking!

p.s. I kinda like Peter's idea of Gondry doing a comic book film/action film. His Boyz N' The Hood looked better than Singleton's. Using a large pizza as a pool of blood was revelatory.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 2:30 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey I was 100 on my own post. And I didn't even know until after I woke up. You think I'm joking but I'm tired and so I just closed my door and totally took a chair nap here at work. Hey when you're exhausted you're exhausted.

Fox - As soon as I can figure out how to post banners and videos in this comment section I'll update from here. Now I think I need to go back to sleep for a bit.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 2:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely agree, and on a related subject: Have you noticed that "dark" has become a synonym for "good" recently in reviews? It's driving me crazy. Everyone seems to want their children's flicks to have some death in it now. I'm fine with darkness and despair (more than fine) but sometimes whimsy and wonder can be just as satisfying, sometimes even more so.

More on topic, saw the Dark Knight, liked it a lot (mostly for the villains and psuedo-philosophy of said villains) but the first two Spider-Men are still the top of the super-hero heap for me. And, just for the record, Spider-Man 3 is damn good.
Krauthammer | | Email | 07.29.08 - 4:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like the first two Spideys a lot but I never saw the third for whatever reason. And yes, you're totally right in that "dark" is good which is why I brought up the much more lighthearted Superman movies in the post, to show that you can make a comic book movie without utter despair. And besides in even Superman and Spiderman you had madmen killing people, just with a light touch.

I'm really excited to see TDK now. Need to see it this weekend.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 4:26 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you two in principle, but a movie like TDK does need to be dark. I find it odd that all this talk (this isn't the only place I've encountered it) about how "dark" doesn't mean "good" is being thrown around in relation to a movie that couldn't be done with a light touch.
bill | | Email | 07.29.08 - 4:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Adam West was in it it would have a light touch. Or if it was done with sock puppets or something. Why couldn't they have done it with sock puppets? Why is the comic book world so against sock puppets?!?!!??
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 6:02 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, I'm not bashing the dark touch, Batman certainly needed a nice dark interpretation on film. I am definitely not knocking "dark" so much as reacting to "light" being turned into a pejorative.

Let me reiterate: I REALLY liked the movie. Probably my favorite superhero movie other than the aforementioned Spider-Man flicks.
Krauthammer | | Email | 07.29.08 - 11:30 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a great post! I haven't read all the comments, at 108 & counting I probably never will, but let me add my own 2 cents.

You nailed it with your analysis of the pompous way genre films are forced into "seriousness" nowadays, and it brings to mind the image of a gawky teenager stuffed into an ill-fitting tuxedo for some adult affair. He doesn't like right in it, can't pull of the gravitas, and it the same time loses the unpretentious naturalness that is his primary charm.

I liked The Dark Knight because it's the rare genre film to pull off its dark themes and mythic overtones. It isn't perfect (and it's certainly not the all-time masterpiece people are making it out to be) but it's excellent entertainment with generally thought-provoking moments.

The unfortunate side effect of Dark Knight's success will probably be a kickstart to the already-tiresome attempt to gussy up genres. The damage done is twofold: one, as you point out, it often robs the genre films of the very qualities which make them valuable; two, it increasingly limits the appeal and hence the creation of films with a genuine complexity and dramatic base, because if producers think they can be "serious" with their explosions-and-chases films, why bother to make anything else? After all, they're killing two birds with one stone, right?
MovieMan0283 | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 12:59 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if producers think they can be "serious" with their explosions-and-chases films, why bother to make anything else? After all, they're killing two birds with one stone, right?

That's a big problem for me. I hate to sound both doom and gloom and snobby at the same time but I really don't want all genres to merge where every action adventure film contains enough seriousness that no one bothers making small dramas anymore. I know the independent producers still will but I don't want the studio system to become all about these types of movies. And I like genre movies because they are different.

In an earlier post Bill and I talked about how you don't expect or require grand emotional scenes in a horror film because the confrontation of horror is, in fact, the emotional catharthis of the character.

Anyway, I go into TDK with high expectations but not high enough that I'll feel cheated if it's not the culmination of 100 years of genre cinema.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 9:10 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skipping over to Iron Man as an example, what I liked about it was its coherence of tone - "coherent" sounds like weak praise but it's not. Every dark moment, every light moment, every action scene, felt appropriate to the story and they flowed in an unforced way.
Sarah | | Email | 07.30.08 - 7:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a good point. It really doesn't matter what the movie does as long as it's appropriate to the story. I gather from most of what I hear that TDK stays true to story and genre as well, it's just that people who don't know or understand or appreciate genre and what it means look for something else to justify its excellence, instead of just accepting it as a great example of genre filmmaking.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 8:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, having not seen it yet, that what you said is probably the best explanation. When you talk about The Fantastic Four failing because it didn't bother to take the subject matter seriously I think that nails it on the head. TDK seems to take its subject matter seriously and Spiderman did as well.

What the hell? THE FANTASTIC FOUR didn't take itself seriously? What the hell for? They were "comic book" movies. Not every comic book movie has to engage in the deep psyche of the hero or villain. I just want a movie about one person or a group of people with exceptional abilities that become involved in an adventure. Is that too much to ask for? And guess what? THE FANTASTIC FOUR movies provided just that.

Yes, I'm well aware they were not as good as SPIDER-MAN or the last two Batman films. So what? They entertained me. That is all I asked for. That is all I ask for any movie. And there is one thing I can say about the two FF4 movies is that both of them didn't end up annoying me with contrived writing in their finales, like THE DARK KNIGHT did.
Rosie | | Email | 07.31.08 - 5:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you saw nothing contrived about the F4 movies, we must have been watching different films.
Ken Lowery | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 6:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosie - I think a movie can be pure fluff but still take itself seriously. That is to say, the filmmakers, while having a good time, still trust in their material and engage in it despite the movie being on no emotional or intellectual consequence. For instance, think the original Bad News Bears. That's not an important film in any sense of the word but everyone in it took it seriously and gave their best. In the Fantastic Four films, it felt as if they thought it was crap from the beginning and didn't bother to try and make it work. That's what I mean by the film not taking itself seriously.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 6:59 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken - Maybe you saw the shelved F4 movie that was never released. By the way, I think here in America, instead of tea time, 4 o'clock should be "Clobberin' Time."
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 7:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you saw nothing contrived about the F4 movies, we must have been watching different films."

I never said anything about whether FF4 was contrived or not. As to whether we saw the same films or not . . . who cares? I liked it. If the FF4 films are guilty of being contrived, then I can say the same about the last half hour of TDK. Because I found it as contrived as you found the FF4 films.

"I think a movie can be pure fluff but still take itself seriously. That is to say, the filmmakers, while having a good time, still trust in their material and engage in it despite the movie being on no emotional or intellectual consequence."

So what? There is no law that the FF4 films still have to take itself seriously, while being fluff. Why do moviegoers and critics insist that certain movie genres should adapt a certain set of rules in how the stories are approached? That strikes me as narrow-minded.
Rosie | | Email | 08.05.08 - 10:38 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rosie - I don't insist on any set of rules. I'm saying that the F4 films felt half-assed and thus unenjoyable. They half-assed to me because it appeared no one was putting any effort into it. That's all I'm saying. I didn't enjoy them and that's why. It could certainly feel different to you or others I'm just explaining why I felt they didn't work.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 10:51 am | #

Public Scolding of Khan Comments

2008-08-12T21:46:00.001-04:00

Jonathan, how many times do I have to tell you: You have Genesis. YOU. HAVE. GENESIS!!! GENNN--ESSS---, you know what, screw it, do what you want (which is anything, by the way since YOU HAVE GENESIS!).
Adam Ross | | Email | Homepage | 07.29.08 - 11:33 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what I'm trying to tell Khan. He won't listen. We've got the ship, we've got freedom, we've got Genesis (all their cds too). We can go anywhere, do anything but NOOOOOOO!!!!! Apparently it's not good enough unless we can kill Kirk. Or do worse than kill him, hurt him. Oh god, he's driving me crazy with this obsession.

KHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 8:44 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on, if my plastic surgeon did to me what Kirk did to Farrah Fawcett, I'd be trying to vaporize him, too!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 9:30 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's those seats of rich, Corinthian leather.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 9:31 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, and Khan? Those stupid little sand beetles you keep putting in my ear while I'm asleep? They hurt like a bastard! Knock that shit off, it's not funny anymore. It was never funny, if you want to know the truth.
bill | | Email | 07.30.08 - 10:18 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Khan lost his Cordova when Seti Alpha VI exploded shortly after Kirk dropped them off. Being without his Cordova, or his little buddy Tattoo, he was forced to use whatever means necessary for plastic surgery on Seti Alpha V. As for the sand beetles, it appears to be his only form of entertainment.

It's sad really. All I know is this: On the next evaluate your boss day, he's getting some very low marks from me. And I'm telling you right now, I am calling out sick if he plans on going to the moons of Nibia.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 10:56 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Khan, bubby, put on a shirt that fits, you'll be more comfortable. And have some brisket, you should eat something.
Arbogast Up Your Ass | | Email | 07.30.08 - 11:26 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah well let me tell you, I once suggested he try and change his look, you know, different shirt, new hairstyle. Know what he said to me? "From Hell's heart I spit at thee!" I was like, fuck it, look like an idiot I don't care.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 11:35 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That Judith Light hairdo is so not the boss.
Arbogast Up Your Ass | | Email | 07.30.08 - 5:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I think he's going for the Jeff Conaway look. Either way, there's definitely a Danza connection in there somewhere.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 7:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Either that, or a Farrah Fawcett connection.
Rick | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 3:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Farrah has a huge scar across her breast too.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 3:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last time I looked she did ...
Rick | | Email | Homepage | 08.01.08 - 1:15 am | #

12 Movie Meme Comments

2008-08-12T21:43:00.000-04:00

Haha!! You hot freak!

The only thing I ask is that you allow me to introduce the films on the night of my name. We can have a Q & A afterwards. And THEN, if the issue still isn't resolved, Bill and I will arm wrestle over the argument whether TDK is good or not.

Also. You can rap? Dude, that is awesome. Do you freestyle about Howard Hawks and shit? That would be hella dope!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 12:30 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can freestyle with the best of 'em! And yes, each blogger/commenter will introduce their films although I can't be held responsible if the mic accidentally goes out during your introduction cause, you know, shit happens.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 12:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox, I have arms like Popeye. The day will be mine!

Since you weren't able to fit Dennis into this, I'll take over:

Day Seven - Dennis Day

Speed Racer
Babel

Why? Because he loves them both!!!

While we're at it:

Day Eight - Jonathan Day

CHUD 2: Bud the CHUD
End of Days

Why? Because one probably has to do with nuclear war or something, and the other has Kevin Pollack in it.
bill | | Email | 07.30.08 - 1:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I'll skip Day 7 but Day 8 sounds pretty good: CHUD, End of Days. Well, there's two of the best films you could've possibly picked for me. Clearly you have been paying close attention to this blog.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 1:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, you know, you've never specifically mentioned those two movies, but I thought about what I've learned about you over the past year or so, and I thought, "Well, Bud the CHUD is obviously one of Jonathan's favorites."

And I actually just saw End of Days for the first time myself about a week and a half ago. It struck me as a movie that Powell and Pressburger would have made, had they lived long enough that CGI effects could catch up to and realize their infernal vision. Plus, Schwarzeneggar plays an alcoholic, suicidal ex-cop. Who doesn't want to see that?
bill | | Email | 07.30.08 - 2:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know I'm an alcoholic, suicidal ex-cop. Didn't know if you knew that.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 2:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I didn't know that. If your suffering is anything like the that experienced by Jericho Cane in End of Days, then you have my deepest sympathies.
bill | | Email | 07.30.08 - 2:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill just sold me on going to rent End Of Days tonight.

I have a copy of C.H.U.D. on VHS but I haven't watched it yet.

Two-for-Tuesday double feature time?? I think so!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 2:55 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is so fun! I want to go see them all!
sheila | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 5:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHUD? Is that the stuff you feed to sharks and then when they get all close to your boat you blow their brains out with a high-powered rifle and the blood goes all over you and your boat and sinks into your motor and causes a massive oil leak?

'Cause like I'd never go see a violent movie like that!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 6:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheila - Thanks. I thought yours fit together quite well, two sides of the same fish out of water coin, one menacing, one lighthearted.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 7:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - You're thinking CHUM, which was directed by Milos Forman right after he did Cuckoo's Nest. And it's not violent at all. It's about a little girl who makes friends with a man-eating shark, but since she's not a man it never eats her. It's really heartwarming.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.30.08 - 7:10 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah!! I remember CHUM now... Roman Polanski played the shark, right???

I love that Shiela loves The Clock b/c more people should love it. And Robert Walker is just so damn sweet in that film. Made even more so b/c of his early death. RIP, dude.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 12:33 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harlan County U.S.A. (1976)
The War Game (1965)

Now, THAT'S a feel-good afternoon.
Scott | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 12:50 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I swear I was here yesterday and all I saw were Khan's enormous pecks staring at me. I was very intimidated and needed to navigate away immediately.

Anyways, what you've done here is brilliant on so many levels I've lost count. You've responded to a meme, but you've also created a meme within a meme by including other selections and you've linked up to them... and oh wait, my mind is spinning.

I love Fox, but this non-stop praise is making me want to give off this Dark Knight crazy train. I swear, as I write this, my son is saying "why so serious" over and over in the room next door.

And who couldn't love Lesbians and Vampires. The two go hand in hand.

But because I'm a simple fellow, Miller's Crossing and Dazed and Confused would be my favorite night. Two great tastes that taste great together.

I'm not surprised that Adam tagged you as well, as great minds think alike.

Many thanks, Jonathan
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 8:50 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - You know your CHUM.

Scott - Anti-depression pills will sold at the concession counter.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 8:51 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piper - I move like a thief in the night. One minute there's Khan, then suddenly - out of a nowhere - a meme appears! Thanks for tagging me Pat, it was an enjoyable meme to do, and I don't often enjoy memes. If you know what I meme?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 8:54 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I AM outraged, you jerk. Shitty remakes of Renoir and Kurosawa ... god. It's just like you see deep into the darkest reaches of the heart and then yank it out, veins dangling, laughing maniacally (you, not the veins). I'll bet you yank the toenails out of little, cute puppy paws, don't you?
Rick | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 2:59 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Down and Out in Beverly Hills is so much better than Boudu or Budro or Bhudha or whatever it is and you know it. And that dog, and Bette Midler, oh, oh, and Little Richard... c'mon you just can't beat that [laughs maniacally to self]
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 3:26 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, I think Boutros Boutros Saved From Drowning is what your searching for.

It's an Egyptian classic.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 5:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it was once the head of the U.N. Or am I thinking Boutros Boutros Ghali?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 6:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yep!

And I've heard that at the U.N. whenever there is too much rancor and disagreement, they pull a screen down in the assembly hall and watch some Renoir.

Ahhh.... if only the answer to international conflict was so easy and beautiful.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.01.08 - 12:24 am | #

Gaslight Banner Contest Comments

2008-08-12T21:40:00.000-04:00

Cinema Styles: "I haven't been afraid since I've known you."

Cinema Styles: "The whole place seems to smell of death."

"Suddenly, I'm beginning not to trust my blog at all."

All quotes from the movie, but perhaps a bit obscure.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 9:34 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole place seems to smell of death. I don't know if I want that describing my blog but a part of me can't resist, it's so beautiful in it's own way.

I like the third the best for now. Great suggestions Marilyn.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 9:40 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For future reference, I found those quotes on Movie Quotes (moviequotes.com). It could help you with future taglines. It has quotes IMDb doesn't.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 9:50 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The whole place seems to smell of death" gets my vote. I don't know Gaslight well enough to contribute. Well, I guess I could check moviequotes.com, but I doubt I'll find anything to beat Marilyn's.
bill | | Email | 07.31.08 - 10:24 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't have to know Gaslight, although I recommend getting to know it. You could do a take on the pic itself. It could be anything - "We don't bully women around here" or anything like that. "Stop it Jonathan, you're scaring me". Come on be creative.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 10:28 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, fine, I'll try. Jesus.

By the way, I have seen Gaslight. It's just been a long time.
bill | | Email | 07.31.08 - 10:32 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I like the third one, too, because it speaks to the theme of the movie.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 10:33 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still waiting for Fox to chime in. I'm assuming his suggestion will be something like, "Cinema Styles: Celebrating Chris Nolan's artistry daily"

Doesn't have anything to do with Gaslight but that's Fox for you.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 10:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and can I tell you how happy I am that Haloscan once again screws up and stops showing comment counts on the very day I actually ask for suggestions in the comment section. Thank you Haloscan you're the best! Jerkwads.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 10:56 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't worry, Jonathan, we still click to see if there are any comments. We're just that self-centered!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 11:03 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ingrid, it's only a blog."

???
Flickhead | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 11:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok... here's my first shot...

Cinema Styles : Preventing Joe Wright Remakes
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 12:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to think of a fart joke but that may be too low brow for Cinema Styles/Lapper.

Plus... there's NO WAY Ingrid Bergman ever farted. She's was just too hot!!!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 12:40 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flickhead - I like that.

Fox - He's not directing a remake of Gaslight is he?

By the way, I've had some submitted by e-mail as well. And they're quite good!

At this point I have about twelve to choose from. It's gonna be tough.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 12:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - She's quite beautiful in the movie as you can see from the banner photo. An amazing face.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 12:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was planning it, but then he decided to the the schizo Jamie Foxx movie instead.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ ...gaslightandquot
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 12:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So maybe it would be better said...

Cinema Styles : Preserving Classics From The Gall Of Joe Wright.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 1:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ingrid, have you been blogging about the lights dimming?
Patricia | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 2:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I crazy, or are we being blogged?
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 2:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not very good at these kinds of things ... "C'mon, baby, light my Blog" is the best I can do ...
Rick | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 2:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick, babe, we couldn't get much higher.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 3:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cinema Styles: It's a gas gas gas..."

"Cinema Styles: You only think you've read it before."

"Cinema Styles: Because Charles and Angela told me to."
Brian | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 3:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian - I love the second one.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 3:42 pm | #

Gaslight Vote Comments

2008-08-12T21:36:00.001-04:00

What, not vote for my own? Number 2. Second choice, Number 11. I like 13, but the casbah is in Algiers, not Casablanca (yes, I'm a nitpicker).
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 5:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have the answer!!! 2 and 11 work great - TOGETHER! You'll see. I'll put it up in a minute.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 5:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JL-

I was thinking, next time you could probably make this game easier by just throwing up a fill-in-the-blank banner of Freejack or ... maybe you can make banners from home photos of your blogger buddies. I've heard that Arbo is a total hearthrob!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 5:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you guys married?
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 5:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No but I've proposed many times... to no avail.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 07.31.08 - 6:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's like Marilyn and I have been mated or forged, like the couple from The Final Programme, into something else, something bigger than the both of us. Kinda creepy, kinda sexy!
Arbogast Up Your Ass | | Email | 08.01.08 - 1:58 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking the exact same thing. Exact! Okay I actually wasn't but I wanted to make you feel good about it.

As a sidenote, if anyone ever tells you the name of the author of The Final Programme what you do is you ask, "Moor what?" Works every time and it's always good for a friendly laugh. Also works with that Bond movie, "Octo... Octo..."
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.01.08 - 8:06 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You're not in the casbah anymore."

That's the best!
Scott | | Email | Homepage | 08.01.08 - 1:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was in my top five. I think I'll put together another Boyer banner and slyly steal that tagline from old Arbo (he submitted that one too).
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.01.08 - 2:09 pm | #

Favorite Moments: The Exorcist Comments

2008-08-12T21:32:00.001-04:00

You are so right about Miller. He is brilliant in this film, and I don't know if that gets talked about enough when talks of this movie go on.

And I can't think of another movie I've seen him in. What happened to the guy???
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 3:07 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree as well. He really gave this film an echo of tragedy that still seemed to cut through all the hystrionics of the film. I remember seeing him in Rudy as Ara Parseghian, a welcome sight, but he probably got moved to the horror movie ghetto.
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 9:57 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - He had a few brief parts in film but stayed close to theatre. In 1973, the year he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his performance in The Exorcist, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his play That Championship Season. I also mentioned in my post on Charlie Murphy, who went to Catholic U with me (Jason Miller went there as well) that he played Oscar to Charlie's Felix in a production of the Odd Couple in 86.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 10:19 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - Though it was such a small role I really liked him in Rudy. He died in 2001 so he never had a chance to play any great old wise men roles (like Ara in Rudy kind of) that I know he would have excelled in.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 10:21 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miller did a lot of TV work in the years immediately following The Exorcist, all of it interesting stuff if not always good - he played F. Scott Fitzgerald (an odd choice, certainly, in terms of age and physicality) in
Arbogast Up Your Ass | | Email | 08.02.08 - 10:46 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I wrote three LONG paragraphs in response and that's all that showed up? What a gyp. And you'll never know what I wrote.
Arbogast Up Your Ass | | Email | 08.02.08 - 10:48 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arbogast - That sucks, what happened? Just a suggestion, whenever I write a long comment (having lost many on blogs over the months) I quickly highlight it and copy it - it takes two seconds. When I post if the whole comment isn't there (and it's happened more times than you know) I simply paste and post again. I've lost a few big ones on Dennis' blog only to re-paste them and have everything work out fine. Wish I knew what you said.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 12:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way Arbo, I checked the edit section and noticed on homepage you have "ht" only. Either put nothing there or the whole page. I think that may be what cut it off - maybe. Can't say for sure though. REPOST your damn comment! please...
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 1:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the all-time great performances, in the single best horror film ever made.

Don't forget Miller's roles in William Peter Blatty's terribly underrated The Ninth Configuration and Exorcist III.
bill | | Email | 08.02.08 - 1:40 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm ashamed to say I never saw either of those because quite frankly no one ever recommended them. I always got the feeling they were lesser efforts best ignored. However, in the last year or so I've heard from a few people, yourself included, that The Ninth Configuration is pretty good although I still can't shake the horrible reactions it got when released. I'll have to check them out.

And I know we've talked about Miller before in this movie but it really is a performance that doesn't get the credit it deserves. John Houseman was fine as Professor Kingsley in The Paper Chase but his role required no depth, it's all surface as he hard noses his students in the classroom. Definitely not worthy of an Oscar over such a contender as Miller in The Exorcist.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 2:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should really see Exorcist III, as well. Keep in mind that it was compromised. I think Blatty wanted a far more low-key ending, and the studio forced him to go with a more traditional horror ending, but quite frankly, even though I'm sure Blatty's original ending is probably better, the ending they have still works. And the beginning of the film, especially the opening credits, is fantastic.

Also, not to bring up The Dark Knight for the umpteenth time, there's something about Heath Ledger's performance in that film that reminds me of Brad Dourif's in Exorcist III. Maybe I'm off my rocker, because I haven't seen the latter film in some time, but I think there's something there.
bill | | Email | 08.02.08 - 3:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, but also, yes, Miller's work in the first film is really beyond praise. And, for a performance and character that is so filled with rage and despair and self-hatred, it's so quiet. God, this is going to get me going on another horror rant, but it really depresses me to think that, these days, a movie like The Descent or the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (both of which I like) are seen as the bar. The Exorcist should be the bar for horror films, and it's not. Maybe it's too daunting, I don't know.
bill | | Email | 08.02.08 - 3:32 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always thought The Exorcist was kind of held up as the bar, not the others. It's always listed number one on polls and lists.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 4:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but filmmakers never aim that high. They acknowledge its greatness without ever showing similar ambition. The two movies I mentioned, that level they'll shoot for. But it's as though it's secretly understood that both The Exorcist and The Shining are unapproachable. And maybe they are, but it would be nice to see that kind of effort again.
bill | | Email | 08.02.08 - 5:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they were within seven years of each other and now 28 years since.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 6:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there you go. Although, I guess I should be a little less pessimistic. Guillermo del Toro is pretty great. He has it in him to reach those heights.
bill | | Email | 08.02.08 - 8:59 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Grave Bloggers" is your best banner yet! HAIL CRISWELL!
Flickhead | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 10:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you know the future is where we're going to spend the rest of our lives? It's true. Criswell told me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 11:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Future events such as these will effect us, in the future.
bill | | Email | 08.02.08 - 11:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see. I am interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable. That is why I am here.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.02.08 - 11:22 pm | #

There's Nothing at the End of the Rainbow Comments

2008-08-12T21:29:00.000-04:00

Oh, Jonathan, what a wonderful piece. I am truly moved. I agree with you about the sense of humanity he brought to his parts - on both sides of the "ethical spectrum". It's touching. No matter what, you like him.

And yes - that scene with the lighter thru the sewer grate was so gripping and, ultimately, so confusing. The first time I saw it I remember thinking, straining forward in my chair, "You can get it! You almost have it! Keep trying!" And on the heels of that was my own confusion ... because ... no, I DON'T want him to get it ... it would be BAD if he got it. And so his character implicated me, as well, in his own crime. So many "villains" in movies miss that element ... and makes it easy for the audience to say, "Well, I'm not like THAT person ... I'm safe!" But with Walker, you could not help but identify.

A truly rare quality.

I would love to see the Lincoln Center Film Society do a retrospect of his work - similar to the one they just did with Holden. I think it's about time, too.

Thanks for the beautiful post.
Sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 3:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Sheila. You're recent posts were the main reason he's been on my mind lately and then just a few days ago, going through old film books to scan photos I came across the pic at the top of the post from The Clock. It's from a 1976 book, The MGM Story, and it put it all fresh in my mind again.

Looking at his face for some reason draws a great deal of empathy from me. He seems sad but I may be reading my own feelings about him into it. I just know that his performance as Bruno is a small miracle because I have more sympathy for him than I do for Guy, and Bruno is supposedly the villain of the piece. Thanks for sparking all of this with your original posts.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 4:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Clock and Strangers On A Train are wonderful, but my favorite film of his is Since You Went Away-- it's an odd, moving picture whose passion and contradictions about life in wartime still feel relevant. And I love his shyness and awkward sweetness in it.
Brian | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 4:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like it a lot too. I guess it's not his film as much as Claudette Colbert's so I didn't concentrate on it. But it's still quite good.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 5:55 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hadn't noticed that he has giant lobsters on his tie in that first scene in Strangers ... How odd and kind of creepy ... Like his tie is about to come to life or something.
Sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 8:45 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't remember ever having noticed it myself watching the movie (probably because Walker pulls you in and you focus on his face) but when I looked at the pic I thought, "How odd. He has on a lobster tie." Like there are little things crawling on it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 10:02 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for giving this wonderful actor some praise. Maybe he gets it in intense film circles, but overall he seems to have been forgotten.

The scene in The Clock between he, Judy Garlard, the escalator, and the heel to her shoe warms my heart every time. It's such a romantic film.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 10:50 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are so many great scenes in The Clock. I didn't discover it until I saw it on TCM. It seemed a bit silly at first but then Walker and Garland pulled me into and by the end it felt like one of the most refreshing movies I had watched in many a moon.

And that opening scene on the escalator is a great example of how well Walker was able to play innocent and sweet.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 10:54 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I might be in the minority on this, but Robert Walker always kind of gave me the creeps. I was totally freaked out by him in The Clock and in my head kept trying to warn Judy away from him.

He has an Anthony Perkins quality, but I find Perkins much more vulnerable and likeable. To me, Walker seems born to play plucky soldiers - he has that kind of face.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 11:44 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hold on let me check the above comments... yep, you're in the minority. Oh I'm just giving you hell you "in the minority" iconoclast. Your Gaslight banner suggestion and Bugs Bunny photo link earn you a "Lifetime Minority Opinion" pass here at Cinema Styles.

I can definitely see a resemblence in style between Perkins and Walker and have often heard people describe Perkins as creepy but I think I have much the same reaction to Perkins in Psycho as I do to Walker in Strangers. Norman is such a sad figure, even though there he is killing people, he's not in control of it and he's racked with insecurities. So I think they both had the same qualities that could make you sympathize and perhaps it's those abilities, when playing stalker types that turn on the "creepiness" factor as well. I just don't get it myself from Walker, I feel too sorry for him which sounds really condescending to him but I don't know how else to put it.

Although all this aside I was quite amused by you writing that you were totally freaked out by him in The Clock. It's funny because if you don't see him in that movie the way I (or Sheila or Fox) do then it's quite a different picture to watch ("Crazy Bastard stalks helpless woman! The feel-good romantic comedy of the year!").
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 12:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a thorough believer in the bum's rush as a warning - if he rushes you, he's a bum. I've had too many creepy experiences like that to enjoy a "romance" that starts that way.

Feel sorry for him? Maybe, but not in a good way--in, as you say, a condescending way. I feel sorry for Norman Bates (a bit) or Mark Lewis (a lot) in Peeping Tom at a deeper level.

And thanks for the minority opinion pass. You may regret that decision....
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 12:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And thanks for the minority opinion pass. You may regret that decision....

Oh crap... I take it back. You get a lifetime "Totally Agree with Jonathan on Everything He Says" pass instead.

Whew. That was a close one.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 1:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strangers on a Train is my favorite Hitchcock film. By far. Walker's performance is huge reason for this. The homoerotic undertones, the laid back coolness, this guys had it all.

I had no idea what happened to him. Sad. I'm adding The Clock to my queue immediately.
Scott | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 1:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of the vulnerability and weird allure of Anthony Perkins, have you guys seen him in Pretty Poison? I've tried pushing that on a couple of people in the past and they came back to me with thumbs down - and to be sure, it's not a GREAT film, but I think still it's a bizarre treasure - so maybe tread lightly, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

Oh, and Tuesday Weld is smoking hot in it too!!!! (That just signaled Jonathan to run out of the office and head to the video store....)

Scott, I can't remember when it was, but Jonathan had a pretty kick-ass banner of Strangers... up on his blog recently. Maybe he will share it with us again.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 1:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott, I've always loved Strangers on a Train too. I like the idea of Bruno having a crush on Guy which seems to be the case. I've probably seen it ten times and never tire of it.

And nothing to do with Walker but damn I love the carousel ending. The way Hitchcock revelled in taking safe places and turning them into nightmare environments always fascinated me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 1:45 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - I've never seen Pretty Poison but I am intrigued. I'll have to check it out and give you a painfully judgmental review. As for the banner, just click on the button at the top of the sidebar. Every banner I put up goes there and they're in alphabetical order.

- Foxboy
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 1:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And just because....

What was it that Godard said about the only two elements you need to make a film???

Oh yeah, BABY! You can murder me any day... especially on a Tuesday, cuz that would be extra-kinky.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 2:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's one for Marilyn cuz I always feel like we leave her out when we go crazy for the leading ladies.

---->Marilyn's man
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 2:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Fox, I'm sure Marilyn will truly appreciate that. And I read about Pretty Poison on Sunset Gun and Kim Morgan loves it so you're not alone. It sounds pretty interesting and well worth a look. It's moving on up the queue.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 2:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't hop on the Robert Walker Love Train(TM) because, outside of Strangers on a Train, I'm woefully ignorant of his work (what a sad end he had. I had no idea).

I've also never seen Pretty Poison, but I've been curious about it since reading Kael's very positive review of it several years ago. I don't even like Kael (don't mean to open up that can of worms again, but still...), but I was intrigued.

And speaking of Anthony Perkins: anybody here see his Jekyll & Hyde/Jack the Ripper 1980s horror film Edge of Sanity? Because if not, you really shouldn't.
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 3:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never saw Edge of Sanity and since you give such a robust anti-recommendation I definitely will not. But Pretty Poison sounds pretty cool from what I read on Kim Morgan's page. And it was made in 1968 so something tells me it will have exactly the feel a movie like that should have, i.e., kind of silly and brightly colored but with dark undertones.

And don't worry about the love train. I just enjoy talking about actors here and I've got plenty more to come. However, if I ever write about Don Cornelius I hope you'll jump aboard the Soooooouuuuuuullllllll Train. In fact, I will insist you do.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 3:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding Edge of Sanity (heretofore EoS), I bought it over the weekend, because this DVD store near me was having a buy-one-get-one-free sale on horror films. I ended up getting ten (see below, for the full list!), most of which I'd never seen, but had an interest in. EoS was the most impulsive purchase of all these impulsive purchases, but I remembered being mildly creeped out by an image of Perkins from the film many years ago.

Anyway, it's terrible. I only made it halfway through -- I'll finish it some day -- because I was called away to deal with more urgent matters (this is actually true, although give the quality of EoS, "more urgent matters" could very easily mean "I decided to make myself some eggs" or "I felt like staring out the window"). But you know how the Jack the Ripper murders occurred in 1888? Well, same here, I guess, but the filmmakers showed virtually no interest in dealing with the kind of period details that might have given their film that extra hint of verisimilitude. A pimp has mousse in his hair, and prostitutes have short, pink, poofy skirts. It's like 1888 by way of 1988. And Anthony Perkins is forced to try an English accent, which I didn't even realize until about twenty minutes in. The whole thing had a low-end Ken Russell vibe, and seeing as I can't abide the high-end version, it was all pretty painful.

What other movies did I purchase, you ask? Why, I'm glad you asked (and bored enough right now to list them)!

X - The Man with X-Ray Eyes
Die, Monster, Die!
The Dunwich Horror
Burnt Offerings
Needful Things
The Abominable Dr. Phibes
Dr. Phibes Rides Again
Theater of Blood
I, Madman

The End
by Bill
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 4:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love the Phibes movies and Theater of Blood, both of which figure into a wee-little trailer I've made for some upcoming extra special goodness here at CS. Needful Things I thought was pretty bad and Burnt Offerings I haven't seen since I was a kid so I couldn't say one way or another. Same with Die Monster Die but I'm on a current Karloff kick so I'd like to see it again, good or bad.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 4:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'd seen Needful Things in the theater, but didn't really remember it. I did watch that one. It's kinda fun, I guess, but not as fun as the book. A horror movie featuring Ed Harris, J. T. Walsh and Max von Sydow should be a lot better.

I'm currently reading the book Burnt Offerings, and so far it's pretty solid. I hope for the same from the film.

I've seen the two Phibes films, though it's been a long time. Never saw Theater of Blood, so I'm really looking forward to that one. And even bad Karloff is worth owning.

One movie I didn't buy was The House Where Evil Dwells, featuring Susan George, Edward Albert, and samurai ghosts. Anybody ever see that one? I hope I didn't make the wrong choice.
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 4:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never seen it but I can give a hearty recommendation to Theater of Blood. I think that one's great.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 4:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just got an afterlife text message from Pauline Kael and she told me to post on "Lapper's web board" (her words) that she thinks The Dark Knight sucks.

And dude, I love X - The Man With The X-Ray Eyes! Staying with Corman, have you guys ever seen Gas-s-s? I love it! It's like a raving good time political film before political films started sucking.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 5:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I don't like Kael, her ghost's opinion of The Dark Knight is meaningless to me.
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 5:26 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ghosts still have feelings, Bill... I think you've just hurt her feelings.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 5:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, she hurt Orson Welles's feelings. And that I cannot forgive.
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 6:14 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, she hurt Orson Welles's feelings. And that I cannot forgive - Same here. Up yours Pauline.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 6:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perkins? Not really my fave rave--just in comparison with Walker. I saw him in an Alan Rudolph film called Remember My Name that is impossible to get your hands on. I met Alan Rudolph at a festival and asked him about it, and he absolutely didn't want to talk about it.

BTW, because of the comments here about C.H.U.D., the hubby went and rented it. You know what? I liked it!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 6:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My favorite part of CHUD is the scene where Kim Greist is in the shower, and the drain sprays blood all over her. Then, the next time you see her, she's wearing a robe and watching TV, as though blood-spraying shower drains were simply one of the every-day problems she had to deal with in her apartment building.
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 6:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I must see C.H.U.D. again soon. I cannot ignore a recommendation from Marilyn. Or hubby.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 6:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn, did you listen to the commentary track? It's quite entertaining.
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 6:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Bill, we didn't. I'd never seen it before, and I don't like to get distracted by someone talking in the ether to me.

And what was that blood thing all about? Psycho meets The Conversation?
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 6:29 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and how about the relatively skinny John Goodman in bit part!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 6:30 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but you can listen to the commentary track after you've watched the movie.

There are a lot of crazy before-they-were-famous cameos in that movie. The other cop with Goodman is Jay Thomas, and a completely unrecognizable Jon Polito pops up as a TV reporter.

My favorite thing about the blood/shower scene was the fact that, apparently, CHUDs had absolutely nothing to do with it.
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 6:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's CHUDs for you.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 8:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for remembering Robert Walker with such an eloquent post (and Sheila O'Malley's previous posts on her site were equally moving). You both put into words so much of what I feel about this actor. It is such a shame that he is so unknown. I believe he never recovered from Jennifer Jones leaving him for the more powerful and influential Selznick. His personal troubles only accentuated his vulnerability, but his talent never wavered. There was a depth to his performances that was not evident among those of other young leading men of the time (or of today, for that matter!). He is one of a very small number of actors who really makes me feel something with every performance, and you describe it perfectly as a human quality. In my opinion no one could match him for sheer sincerity, and I believe that is a very difficult quality to put across on screen. Other favorite performances include him as Brock Brewton in "The Sea of Grass" and as Johannes Brahms in "The Song of Love." What talent and versatility!
Cathy | | 08.05.08 - 4:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Cathy. I agree with you completely about sincerity. I think that's what I get from him when I see his performances which is why in many ways a performance like that in Strangers on a Train is confusing to the viewers emotions. He's a killer but he seems like the most vulnerable, sincere and real person on the screen. I think Strangers was finally pushing Walker in more complex directions with character portrayals which makes it doubly sad that he died when he did.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 4:15 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beautiful post about this neglected actor, who did bring a fragile quality to everything he played. Strangers is his best film and The Clock his second-best, no doubt, but I dearly love his performance in Since You Went Away, a boy yearning for his father's approval, terrified of battle but wanting to be brave. His love scenes with Jones are very touching and it's odd to reflect that their marriage was coming unglued at the time.

Like Cathy I also admire him in Sea of Grass (the movie is a snooze but he is not) and Song of Love, where he looks and acts nothing like Johannes Brahms and yet you love him all the same.
Campaspe | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 11:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never see Sea of Grass but I'd certainly like to. I'll have to see if it's on DVD and if so get it from Netflix.

I do love Since You Went Away more than I should. I resisted it strongly the first time I saw it, wanting to dislike it for it's sentimentality but everyone (except Shirley - god she's awful) won me over by the end and I've never had a bad time watching it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 11:34 pm | #

Who's Says You Can't Have a Trailer for a Blog Comments

2008-08-12T21:26:00.001-04:00

October is also my busiest reviewing month - Chicago International Film Festival. I might have to miss some of the fun here (sob!).
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 8:56 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? WHAT!?!? Miss some of the fun??!!!?! I won't hear of it. I'm going to advertise your Chicago International Film Festival goings on in my sidebar so your presence won't be missed. Besides, I can't give anything away, but I have a "Fall Preview Trailer" in which a handful of folks around here are called out specifically but I can't reveal why. But obviously you're among them. I'll put it up next week some time.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 9:16 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to BE in a MOVIE!!! Yippee!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 10:20 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October is my favorite month too. I can't wait!
Campaspe | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 11:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad to hear it. It goes up tomorrow.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 11:31 pm | #

MGM Silver Jubilee Comments

2008-08-12T21:23:00.001-04:00

Goddamn Lassie in the front and center... That fu*king bitch!

And freakin' Errol Flynn gets second row??? No wonder he looks pissed!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 12:42 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holy crap, thanks for posting this-- I've been looking for the image for years.

I still think Judy wanted to lean over and sing a few bars of "Dear Mr. Gable" to Clark...
Brian | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 1:22 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This brings back some memories. When I was growing up in Portland, the best cineplex in the city (still the best, really -- Lloyd Cinemas) had this photo blown up to mural size in its lobby. I never recognized anyone but Lassie (c'mon, I was .
Adam Ross | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 6:30 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's a great (hilarious) banner, probably my second favorite 50s sci-fi behind Forbidden Planet.
Adam Ross | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 6:34 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - That's actually Butchie, Lassie's lover. And Errol was probably too drunk to care so we can all take solace in that.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 8:22 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brian - Glad you like it (and I'm glad your back from your whirlwind tour, you were missed). New movie books don't have photos like this anymore. Although I noticed I let a bit of text creep in to the top of my scan but otherwise my pleasure reproducing it for you.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 8:24 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam - What a cool mural for a movie lobby! And I so completely love The Incredible Shrinking Man. I like the first half just fine but once he's in that basement it becomes downright geekily exciting for me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 8:26 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Van Johnson seems to be happiest to be there. Lionel Barrymore is probably happy just to be still alive. Lewis Stone seems pissed considering that the low budget "Andy Hardy" movies helped keep MGM financially afloat.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 8:45 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter - It's amazing to me how grumpy so many of them seem. And as Fox said, Errol does look ticked off. Maybe he didn't like Gable (by the way everyone, they're seated in alphabetical order from bottom row left to right to top row left to right - with the two exceptions of Lionel Barrymore and Lassie, not sure why) and was annoyed they had to sit together. But good old Van, he does look happy. Maybe aftewards he cheered up Lewis Stone with a drink and a joke.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 8:59 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Lawford looks weird with a mustache.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 9:33 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And like so many others, he looks annoyed. He's also slightly out of place. He should be after Lansbury and Lanza and Janet Leigh should be at the start of the next row. So maybe he's annoyed that he's the only "L" up there.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 9:39 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spence looks like he's sitting for a mugshot.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 9:48 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's Jane Powell in front of Spencer and if you cover up the top part of his body his hands look like floppy bunny ears on Jane Powell's head. Well at least to me they do. I've looked at the picture about a million times. After a while you start to see things.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 10:08 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who's the kid in the back row????

He looks so out of place, and kind of creepy... like the cardboard window boy in Three Men and a Baby.

p.s. How many people in that room do you think were schtooping each other?
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 10:35 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay,

Starting from the back row.

Jessie, Doozie, Smiley, Ralph, Jeffery, Julie, Mikey, Katie, Smelly Stewie, Limpy Louie.

Wait, I have a meeting. I'll be back.
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 10:37 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - It's the boy with green hair of course, Dean Stockwell.

As for schtooping, oh I'll say a third. Hepburn and Tracy we obviously know but I think Van Heflin and Lionel Barrymore might have had something going on too. And Lassie? Well, let's just say I heard she got around.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 10:56 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piper - My god that's amazing! You didn't miss one. Okay, come on, admit it: You have the answers don't you.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 10:57 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Holy crap! That's Dean Stockwell? Awesome! Isn't Sheila a Stockwell obsessive? She should be thrilled when she she's this.

And for schtooping... I'm not implying anything... or maybe I am... but a body language expert would have a field day with what's going on between Flynn and Gable.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 11:15 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...when she she's this."

Fox, have you been drinking?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 12:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh gosh... haha, that's hilarious. That can't even be covered up as a typo! That's just straight up brain damage.

And I keep looking at this pic...

Know I'm noticing Kate Hepburn's eye line.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 12:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you noticing it know, right know, as in know this very instant?

Okay, I'll stop giving you hell.

I think Kate's amused at the Flynn/Gable situation and is waiting to see if Flynn starts lashing out at Gable uncontrollably.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 12:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone already beat me to the banner love, but let me just repeat: awesome. Second only to your "Now Shamelessly Ripping off other Blogs" one to me.

I love the movie too, "To God, There is No Zero"? Amazing stuff. Jack Arnold has always been a bit underrated.
Krauthammer | | Email | 08.05.08 - 12:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grrrrrr...
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 1:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox,

Lassie is a bitch, but she's a saucy bitch that knew how to throw her weight around back in the day.

Okay Lapper,

Burt Reynolds is in the first row.

Winston Churchill is right behind him.

And is that John Adams on the right end of row two?
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 1:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Krauthammer - I love the ending of that movie. I love that he's not discovered in the basement, no cure is found, no solution or resolution. He just keeps getting smaller until we assume his lungs will no longer take in air and he will die. It goes against everything you'd expect from a sci-fi movie of the time in which a cure is found or the process turns the character into a madman and thus his death is acceptable or something like that. But to end a film, a sci-fi film no less, with no story resolution has always impressed me. Despite some uneven acting and poor optical effects early on, by the second half, the basement half, this really turns into a superb movie. Overall, I'd say one of the best sci-fi of the fifties, better than The Day the Earth Stood Still and on par with Forbidden Planet.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 1:33 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - Mmmmmm... grapefruit.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 1:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piper - We've got to harness the power of your recollective abilities, they're astounding. I figured no one would recognize Adams or even remember that he was one of MGM's most popular stars in his early 200's. I am humbled in your presence.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 1:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, what's going on in here? Why all the ruckus??
bill | | Email | 08.05.08 - 2:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay...can someone PLEASE help me with the top row? The first three men. I'm losing my mind. The first two women and the man with the wacked out smile.

Help.

Please.
Alex | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 3:01 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure abuot the third man, but the first two are Mario Lanza and Lewis Stone.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 3:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - Where've you been? The ruckus is everyone has been wondering, "Where the hell is Bill?"
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 3:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was in the garden.
bill | | Email | 08.05.08 - 3:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute, Alex, I'm confused. The first two women on the top row are Alexis Smith and Ann Sothern followed by J. Carroll Naish, Dean Stockwell and Lewis Stone. But I don't know which whacked out smile you refer to. I've got a whacked out smile but I'm not in the picture. I'm pretty sure Bill's smile is whacked out too but as far as I know he's not in the picture either.

Fear not though Dear Alex - I'll put up a scan of the key in a bit. If you want to keep guessing you can ignore it, or if you just want to know you can look at it(and then show your friends the picture without the key and be all totally like, "Oh my god you don't know who that is?").
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 3:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that Lionel Barrymore in the front row next to Astaire?

And is that Angela Landsbury in the third row, three from the right?
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 4:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lionel's in the front row all the way to the left. But that's Angela in the third row third from the right. Hey wait a minute, those were real guesses - are you feeling okay?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 4:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, I'm legit.
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 4:31 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey everyone...

I did some research and found a picture of Jonathan's acting troupe from 1999. He's the one leaning back-to-back with the other guy.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 7:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know if I wanted to (since this is Haloscan and not Blogger comments) I could just edit your comment and make it so that you say something really embarrassing about yourself. But since I like you and I'm so proud of the work I did on The Trojan Women with that troupe I'll refrain.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.05.08 - 7:31 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know if I wanted to (since this is Haloscan and not Blogger comments) I could just edit your comment and make it so that you say something really embarrassing about yourself.

You could... but with the way I've been acting around here lately, I've probably done enough damage myself. You now what I'm shaying?
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 1:04 am | #

Mickey Rooney Picture Post Comments

2008-08-12T21:17:00.002-04:00

Maybe it's because such a short man appears to be pulling such hot tail.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 2:42 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps you are channeling Elmer Fudd.
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 3:05 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - Mayhab. But in all seriousness, I don't really want to punch him. I just hate that kind of obvious over-arching falsity that Rooney could play. It wasn't a natural hamminess like a Charles Laughton, more of a fake "I'm so happy".
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 10:44 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - My god that picture's perfect! It's him! Incredible resemblence.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 10:45 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hahahahahahahahaha
Sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 3:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I having a hard time responding to comments on this post because I have to keep looking at that picture. Damn it's irritating! Maybe I should blur his face out.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 4:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love Marilyn's link! I can't stop laughing.
Sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 4:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They look exactly the same! It's astonishing!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 5:54 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's the Mr. Ed grin on his face. You don't hate Mickey Rooney. You just hate horses.
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 10:32 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry Piper, I didn't read your comment. I was naked in the barn with my sickle blinding the horses. Now what were you saying?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 11:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My grandpa used to work on movie sets. He also used to play poker with Mickey Rooney. Now he grumbles about how much of a bastard he was, always buying everyone out and showing off his fat cash.
Scott | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 1:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That doesn't sound flattering. I want your grandpa to do a podcast all about how much he can't stand Mickey Rooney. I'd love to hear it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 1:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan,

Fucking classic. Can I say Fucking?

I sound like my son.

Dad, you can't say Fucking.

Gabe, don't say Fucking.

Dad, I didn't say Fucking. You're the one who said Fucking.

Anyways. Go on and blind them horses. You'll get no quarrel from me.
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 2:33 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piper - I would appreciate it if you would not use the word "quarrel" in my comment section. I find it offensive. Really fucking offensive. I'm not too wild about "sound" either but I'll fucking ignore it for now. Anyway, thanks for the fucking comment.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 2:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Double your pleasure, double your fun, with Doublemint, Doublemint, Doublemint Gum...
bill | | Email | 08.04.08 - 6:42 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you're saying I should punch him twice? Agreed.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.04.08 - 8:24 pm | #

Brothers, Sisters We Don't Need This Fascist Groove Thing Comments

2008-08-12T21:10:00.000-04:00

I wish I could remember the details, because it would make me sound smarter, but I remember reading most, if not all, of Thomas More's Utopia in college, and being struck by what a miserable, boring, joyless paradise More hoped we would one day achieve. The politics of it all I don't think were quite as jaw-dropping as what H. G. Wells laid out, but it still sounded like a whole bunch of no fun. And yet that word is still thrown around as a symbol of the ideal.

As for Wells, I'm not as familiar with his fiction as I'd like to be, but as I remember it, the Eloi in The Time Machine -- which I have read -- with whom the Time Traveler was so enamored, seemed like a lumpy, bland group. I guess that's how Wells saw mankind. Even worse, that's how he saw the good ones. I guess what I'm trying to say is, H. G. Wells must have been a real bitch to hang out with.
bill | | Email | 08.06.08 - 1:45 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, the Coupland piece really elaborates everything so well (which I guess it should since it's 20 pages longer than my post) not just about Wells but about how so many political idealogies of the thirties were so confused. And Wells really didn't seem to see the contradictions inherent in oppressing someone for their freedom. And I love that he actually believed that at a certain point the elite would resign their posts and leave. Hahahahaha. It's a mixture of political naivete and cultural snobbery that makes for a bad soup.

And yes the Eloi. Boring, faceless, lifeless. No individualism, nothing to strive for, no goals to set. What a bore. Utopian automatons.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 1:57 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that Stalin was particularly delighted at how much he had duped HG Wells (who wasn't as taken with the revolution as he thought he should be - but who, nevertheless, came back home and reported on how "candid" Stalin was - this as millions upon millions starved in the Ukraine in the famine that wasn't even happening, according to Stalin) But Wells was one of the many "useful idiots" without whom the terror of Stalin would not have been possible. Walter Durranty -Beatrice and Stanley Webb - HG Wells ...

I am also VERY interested in the fact that Rebecca West (one of my idols, and certainly one of my favorite writers and thinkers of all time) had a long-term affair with him, and they had a child ... and she herself was a brilliant writer against fascism, although there was a socialist aspect to her political views (most intellectuals had that at the time). She was NOT duped by the Soviet Union and the show trials - when most in the West were credulous to the point of stupidity: "Why are all of these people confessing if they're NOT guilty?" was the basic attitude in the West toward the show trials - so it's a really interesting dichotomy between the two lovers. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to their political conversations!!

I actually bought a couple months ago the complete collectino of her letters - and haven't read it yet, but I'm eager to get to it!

Two fascinating complex individuals.

Oh, and amusingly: Rebecca West is one of the "witnesses" in Reds - who speak about that time in history (she's the one who sits with another old lady, and West has beautiful big eyes behind googly-eyed glasses) - and at one point, West, an old old woman, says, and you can still feel the contempt in her voice so many years later, "You know who didn't know anything at all about socialism? Beatrice and Stanley Webb. They didn't know a THING."

The so-called experts.

Anyway, I'll stop ranting now. It's one of the periods in history I am totally fascinated by!
sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 3:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a couple of quotes from Beatrice and Sidney Webb's stuff in the article and apparently Wells based the characters of the Baileys in The New Machiavellis on them and ripped them apart.

According to the article Wells eventually rejected most of Fascism and Nazism's tenets but clung to the idea that Fascism could be made to work if done properly, i.e., liberal fascism. He liked the efficiency of Fascism and while he liked many of the ideals of the Left he felt that they were the wrong type of people for revolution, describing them as, among other things, "barely cryptic nudists," "extremely woolly vegetarians, "flimsy people," and finally concluding "not the stuff revolutions are made of."

Since I cannot copy and paste from the article as it is embedded PDF and my level of permission with JSTOR does not allow me to download the PDF, whereby I could convert it, I have done the next best thing. I wanted you to read the Stalin/Communist section of the article, so I took a screenshot and uploaded it to Flickr in two pages. Here they are:

Part One Read First

Part Two Read Second
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 4:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I've actually read that (like I said: that whole era is a passion of mine)!

The alliances were a shifting thing - as well as the political labels themselves - like Orwell experienced, and others ... who started out strictly Left and with the advent of Stalinism and the tales of terror and the gulag had to either break with Russia, OR stick up for it, OR say, "Well, socialism is still possible - if it weren't for pesky villains like Stalin!"

As though it was the PERSON that was bad, not the idea itself.

Watching all of those people work that all out - on the ground - AS events were occurring - is endlessly fascinating (and also infuriating).
sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 5:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and I think a LOT of people at that time had a very difficult time of it - letting go of ideology, or the "idea", the abstraction. That is the whole danger with that kind of utopian fascistic thinking!

That's one of the reasons why Orwell was so excoriated - but why he is one of my favorites. Because he remained independent. Not wishy-washy - but a man who was able to look at his own idealogy, and really ask the tough questions. And make a break with his old comrades because he would not choose an abstraction over the human reality right in front of him.

He has still not been forgiven by many for that.
sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 5:02 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of this is very a propos with this week's death of Solzhenitsyn, another one of my intellectual heroes - another guy who could not be used by the state no matter how hard they tried, who did not choose abstractions over humanity - until the last 10, 15 years of his life, perhaps) and whose writings mean more to me than I can ever say!
sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 5:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to babble on. But that decade or so of political thinking (and thinkers, mistaken or otherwise) is an ongoing passion of mine.
sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 5:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheila - Thanks for the insight. I love Orwell too and thought he was planted firmly on the ground. I do believe that most idealogies that do not focus on state control over the individual are not bad in and of themselves but can be twisted by the wrong person. I've never viewed the Soviet Union as anything close to actual communism so I think it's a shame that communism itself got such a bad rap due to the Soviet Union, China and Cuba which are all dictator states.

However, I don't believe pure communism can really work beyond a small village anyway due to the evergrowing needs of the growing populace that can only be handled with free enterprise, government services, entrepreneurialism and other things that come with democratic or socialist or parliamentary systems.

What annoys me about that era is all the "useful idiots" who aided the Soviet Union in perpetuating its myth. I remember reading the acceptance speech of Paul Robeson after receiving the Stalin Peace Prize and wondering how he could be praising the Soviet Union and Stalin so much. Was he that naive? Was the information just that hard to come by? What?

Yet for people like Orwell it didn't seem as if the truth about the Soviet Union was a mystery and so it lessens my view of all those who, by the late forties, especially after Berlin, still viewed the Soviet Union as a great nation run by a peace loving government.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.06.08 - 6:45 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never heard of a government -- including ours -- that could be genuinely called peace-loving. Except, perhaps, Switzerland? When I see all the talk about "useful idiots" I think of all in the media who, over the past six years or so, have been skillfully manipulated by the powers that be, elected or not, to bolster this administration's war. Capitalism or communism, there's always been those useful idiots who are duped by the ruling elite who, strangely, never seem to change.
Rick Olson | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 3:01 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick - Don't get me started on the "useful idiots" in the media, or for that matter the "useful idiots" in Congress who have (all apologies to readers for getting so political) let this administration get away with outright thuggery of the lowest order. I've had Presidents in the past where I did not agree with all of their policies but none until now that I felt had done as much damage to our country and its reputation. And that's saying a lot considering some of the things past administrations have done from Johnson to Nixon to Reagan to Clinton. Ironically, the first Bush is looking to have historically one of the most acceptable (that is scandal free) and relatively dignified administrations of the lot of them from LBJ on. Who'd a thunk it?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 5:32 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and Rick, you forgot to add, "Oh my god Jonathan totally awesome video!"
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 5:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh my God, Jonathan, totally awesome video. When will I get my check?
Rick | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 9:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like The Dark Knight.
MovieMan0283 | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 9:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick - The check was sent last week. You didn't get it?

MovieMan0283 - You've got the check don't you?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.07.08 - 10:10 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan - I think people were so invested in socialism working that they were willing to write off millions of deaths - or to not believe it even happened ... because it somehow threatened their ideology.

That's why these folks went AFTER Orwell (and others) who saw what was going on, and spoke it out.

It was seen as a "betrayal" - know what I mean? The true believers needed the "idea" to work, and to be PERCEIVED to be working (which was even more important) - so: famine? What famine? There was no famine. Show trials? They were totally real trials and those people on trial were enemies of the state. Why else would they confess? Gulag? It's just a prison system, like every country has.

WILLFULLY not seeing what was going on. Or - basically eating up Soviet propaganda and reporting it back to the West.

It was naive, I think it was very naive.

BUT I want to make clear that I looove HG Wells' fiction and his writing!

He was a mixed bag, like all of us.

Thanks for the great discussion!
sheila | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 10:13 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fascinating article and follow-up comments. I think a great deal of the Communist apologists on the Left and the Fascist/Nazi sympathizers on the Right were a product of the seeming failure of Capitalist Liberal Democracy in the US, Great Britain and France at the time. In 1936, most folks expected that Hitler or Stalin would be the face of the future, not FDR or Chamberlain (and poor old Winston was a non-factor at that time, even if he did correctly predict what would happen in Europe). So I think things have to be taken into context. Few thinkers were as clear eyed and grounded as Orwell, unfortunately. As for Wells's Liberal Fascism, isn't it pretty much the same thing as Marx and Engel's Dictatorship of the Proletariat which, once all has been achieved, would wither away leaving the proles free? In the end, it's all pie-in-the-sky optimism, since knowing what most of us do about human nature, it is the rare dictator or junta that ultimately resigns and frees its people of its own free will. Like the greatest philosopher of the latter half of the 20th Century said: "Don't follow leaders; watch your parking meters.
Fred | | Email | 08.08.08 - 2:27 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheila and Fred - Thanks for the follow up comments. I think you both touch on the same thing, basically willful ignorance in the face of idealogically defeating truths. I can certainly understand wanting a better system in the face of a world in economic turmoil. I think what bothers me most about Wells' ideas, the reason I am admittedly a little harsh on them and condescending by calling them dimwitted is because of what I say in the post and Fred echoes here, which is anyone of intelligence should know that oppressive powers do not step aside when their "work" is done. The fact that that is a central tenet of Liberal Fascism makes the whole enterprise ridiculous in my eyes. How could Wells be that daft?

And Sheila, perhaps I should read more Wells. I like his stories but his prose numbs me. The last Wells I read was "The World Set Free" and I found it laborious to get through not because it was too loquacious but because it was stilted, to my eyes at least. I haven't read "The Invisible Man" since I was a teen but I do love the opening pages of "The War of the Worlds" and wish more of his novels had the kind of menacing eloquance that opens that story. It's beautiful.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 3:01 pm | #

Cinema Styles October Kill Fest Trailer Comments

2008-08-12T20:58:00.000-04:00

Er...that was actually pretty creepy, Jonathan.
bill | | Email | 08.08.08 - 9:02 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - You got to see it! That's makes me happy. I always figure you have to wait until you get home from work to watch these things. And I'm glad you found it creepy. I guess that's a good thing with a Kill Fest trailer.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 9:44 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I happen to be home today. Not feelin' too perky, sonny...

Weren't you going to making refereng to "regulars" in this trailer? Or am I thinking of something else.
bill | | Email | 08.08.08 - 9:56 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very awesome Jonathan. It reveals a whole new part of you that I haven't experienced before.

I can't help but think that you are Jack Nicholson lurching towards those poor innocent ladies!

p.s. I wonder which director(s) was in bed with Margot Kidder in that one shot.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 10:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - The "some of the regulars will be featured" thingy comes next week, in my Cinema Styles Fall Spectacular Trailer. I find it quite entertaining.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 11:10 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Fox there are a couple of male victims in there (The Wicker Man, The Serpent and the Rainbow) but generally speaking, the sub-genre tends toward female victims. Of course I'll be doing a set of different montages in October (some of which I have already completed) that focus on the different subsets of genres within horror (monster movies, ghost stories, etc.) that have nothing to do with slicing and dicing but for the main Kill Fest trailer, I wanted to splash a little blood about.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 11:15 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh... I wasn't complaining, I thought it was well done.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 11:20 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't think you were complaining you sly Fox, I just wanted to clarify to everyone that I wasn't trying to just show a bunch of ladies get knifed, strangled and hanged.

But as a warning about October for the gentler Cinema Styles readers: some of the banners are a bit on the graphic side.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 11:40 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This might be a good post to introduce the topic of Natalie Portman producing and starring in the remake of Suspiria.

Had you heard of this? David Gordan *Yawn* is directing.

But somehow I think the casting of Portman works. I don't particularly like her as a deep actress, but I think she has the face for this role.

I mean, it's been awhile, but I don't remember Jessica Harper acting much in the original,... but she did a good job at looking cute.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 11:58 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They're remaking Suspiria? I had no idea. Why can't they just let the original stand? I doubt they'll do justice to the technicolor glory of the original.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 12:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brilliant. Perfectly paced and, yes, creepy. The splash on the light bulb - great timing. What was the music?
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 1:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent preview. That was better than most trailers I see at movie theaters today. All you need is Adolph Cesare's baritone and you're set.
Fred | | Email | 08.08.08 - 2:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - The music? Glad you asked. I get music from all over the internet, most of it without even hearing it first. I do searches on instrumental, soundtrack and the like to find pieces that might be fitting for a montage or a trailer. This bit of music I discovered a few months back. It is composed by Jack Wall and is, believe it or not, the theme for the game "Myst III".

I listened to it and immediately thought, "Horror Trailer" even though MYST is pretty far from horror. In fact, I'm not sure how the hell this music fits that game but whatever. It's about five and a half minutes long. I took a section from the beginning, middle and end and spliced the three together for the trailer.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 2:48 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Fred! I could start the next one with the words, "One man, on a deserted outpost at the edge of the galaxy..."
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.08.08 - 2:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a great trailer, must have been fun to put together. I loved that there was a clip from "Theatre of Blood," which is one of my favorite horror flicks.

BTW - I really enjoy your blog. I've been "lurking" here for a long time.
Pat | | Email | Homepage | 08.09.08 - 3:21 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much Pat, I'm glad to know you like the blog and very glad to know you like Theatre of Blood - What a great movie, one of Vincent Price's best.

I enjoy doing trailers and montage shorts a little too much. I'm currently making about four at once. A new Fall trailer goes up this week.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.09.08 - 3:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sweet. (No Jesus.)
Arbogast Up Your Ass | | Email | 08.09.08 - 6:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Arbo. On all things Horror I value your opinion.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.09.08 - 8:51 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn that's good...Start with the creep and end with the splatter.

Ya gotta do a J-Horror one. I've been wanting to, but 1) I'm not sure I own enough good clips to make it worth while and 2) I would truly suck at it.

Looking forward to more of 'em!
Bob Turnbull | | Email | Homepage | 08.09.08 - 9:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob - Thanks! I am woefully inadequate to the task where Japanese horror is concerned. It's an area of film in which I am truly lacking. But if someone could recommend some good titles to me, who knows.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.09.08 - 11:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J-Horror.

Ju-on (and its sequels). Cure. Ghost Actress. The Happiness of the Katakuris (comedy/musical/horror). Ringu (and its sequels). Kwaidan.
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 08.10.08 - 9:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and Dark Water. Excellent film.
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 08.10.08 - 9:58 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first Ju-On is the only one of the series I've seen, but it really is very good. Genuinely creepy.

I'm not much of a fan of Miike, but Audition is definitely worth checking out.
bill | | Email | 08.10.08 - 10:36 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn has hit some of the biggies. Some others:

Pulse, Seance, Retribution (all by Kiyoshi Kurosawa), Reincarnation (by Takashi Shimizu, director of the Ju-On films), Audition, One Missed Call (both Takashi Miike), Uzumaki, Onibaba, Jigoku.

Non-Japanese Asian horror:

Alone, Shutter (both Thailand), A Tale Of Two Sisters, Acacia (both Korean).

You'll never look at long flowing black hair the same...
Bob Turnbull | | Email | Homepage | 08.10.08 - 11:00 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not J-horror but you've got to sneak MR. VAMPIRE in there - it's got the most hysterically geometric laughs I've ever had. The classic 60s omnibus KWAIDAN is worth investigating, too, and how about the scene from DIAL "D" FOR DEMONS where all the cast members smash their haunted cell phones? Actually, you could do a whole cell phone montage.
Arbogast Up Your Ass | | Email | 08.10.08 - 11:21 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks everyone. I've seen only a couple of those so I'm clearly lacking when it comes to J-horror. But that's what queues are for. And MR. VAMPIRE I am also unfamiliar with. My horror has concentrated primarily on Universal, Hammer and Bava over the years ( I really like the thirties and sixties set designs) and mainly English language horror films of the seventies, eighties, nineties and 00's. I must begin to expand my horizons in this area.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.10.08 - 3:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neato! October can't come soon enough.

Since J-horror is a favorite of mine I have to recommend some other classic favorites not mentioned yet like Jigoku, Onibaba, Kuroneko, The Bloodthirsty Trilogy and Hausu. As well as newer films like Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Cure. For my money Kiyoshi Kurosawa is probably the best director currently making horror films in Japan.

p.s. looking over your older posts I noticed you have had some health problems and I'm glad you're feeling better!
Kimberly | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimbery! Thank god you're back. I have most definitely missed you in the comment section here. I really never knew about J-horror until I started blogging to be honest as embarrassing as that may be to admit. I have a lot of catching up to do so thanks for your expert recommendations.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:49 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh and thanks. That illness was life sucking. My son got it the next week and had to go through the same crap I did with it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neato! October can't come soon enough.

Since I'm rather fond of older Japanese horror films I thought I'd recommend some classics no one has mentioned yet like Jigoku, Blind Beast, Onibaba, Hausu and The Bloodthirsty Trilogy. As for newer films I highly recommend Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Cure (for my money he's the best director making horror films in Japan right now) as well as Angel Dust, Freeze Me and Kickiku. Some of these verge on being more art/social commentary than straight out horror movies but I tend to prefer that in a lot of modern Japanese horror films myself.
Kimberly | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:58 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAMN!

I thought my first comment didn't show up so I wrote it again and remembered some other titles. Oh well...

Anyway, thanks for the welcome back and I'm glad to hear you're doing better. I'm trying to catch up on my blog reading this week but it's slow going. I was happy to see you're gearing up for October! Maybe we should plan some kind of horror related blogathon? I know I'd like to join in one.
Kimberly | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 4:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p.s. clearly I need to get the hang of how to "comment" again in people's blogs!
Kimberly | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 4:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never know what to do with blogathon's which is why I've never done one. But I'll be happy to participate if you come up with one. Besides, I'm no expert like you and the Arbo.

And Haloscan sucks today, and often. I've been getting a lot of double posts of comments today. I'd like to drop it but I don't want to lose over 5,000 comments.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 4:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, since Kimberly mentioned Kurosawa again, you should check out the Kiyoshi Kurosawa Blog-a-thon that just wrapped up. Not to wave my own flag, but I contributed a post to it as well with some clips of a few of my fave creepy moments from his films that use sound (or lack of it) really effectively.
Bob Turnbull | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob - Thanks I'll definitely check it out. And wave your own flag as much as you want. Wave it high!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan: C'mon to my place, and browse through the archives as I've been covering Asian horror films fairly regularly. For Thai films available in the US, recommend Nang Nak, Ghost of Mae Nak, S.A.R.S. War which is one of the funniest horror comedies made, and for those times when you're just looking for shocking images to "borrow", both Art of the Devil movies, and Sick Nurses.
Peter Nellhaus | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 12:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe me Peter, I know. I've read the reviews and they've made you the all-time Thai Horror expert in my opinion. Basically, I'll just load up my queue with all of these titles and then I will be the Asian Horror King of the Hill. Mwahaahaahahahaaa. But I don't believe I'll time before October to get a montage together with any of these, sadly. I'm also doing some original work as well and that's taking some time.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 1:21 pm | #

Public Scolding: Glinda the Good Witch Comments

2008-08-12T20:55:00.001-04:00

Lapper turns the iconic Dorothy into a cynical rump roaster!

But seriously... when you were in Oz, you didn't corrupt any of those innocent lil' munchkins, did you?
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 2:44 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew I wasn't alone! That Glinda and here moralising ways. Why I oughta...(*shakes fist*)

Seriously though you've made my morning, that just cracked me up.
Ibetolis | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 5:54 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope Miss Gulch is on that list as well. I realize we're in Kansas, but can you really get a court order to destroy a little dog? Let me see this "court order," hey this isn't a court order, it's a deli order -- for a reuben with extra sauerkraut! You're goin down lady, where's my sickle?
Adam Ross | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 6:58 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - I was in Oz a couple of years ago and haven't made it back since. I've been studying witchcraft and wizardry so that I may take on Glinda in an epic battle of good versus evil when I return. She may seem innocuous but her powers are formidable. I just hope the Scarecrow (by the way his given name is Frank Jeffries, we called him Frankie) hasn't totally ruined the Emerald City with his self serving agricultural policies of using all surplus wheat for backup stuffing for himself.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 8:04 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ibetolis - Glinda just likes toying with people. I've discovered that about her. I found out through correspondence with the Lion (pretty good writer actually) that she had placed bets with other witches as to whether I'd be killed or not on my journey. Damn her eyes.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 8:08 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam - She really thought I'd fall for that. Later she said she had a court order to destroy me. Please. I was like, "Let me see it," and she was all, "Oh you know, it says the usual 'Take Jonathan out back, destroy him.'" Anyway she's not so bad anymore. She and Professor Marvel hooked up and now she travels the state selling snake oil to people. Turns out she's a natural.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 8:13 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, when she called them ruby slippers, that should have been your first clue Glinda was up to no good. Slippers backless and made of terrycloth. If you go back again, watch out. I hear that she's wired them. One click together and you'll be another fairytale--Humpty Dumpty!
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 9:14 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, I have just one question: how often do you wear ruby slippers and where do you go when you do? 'Cause it's created a image in my head that I'll have to drink heavily and long to erase.
Rick | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 9:36 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't worry Marilyn I'll be ready. I've already memorized several incantations that prevent people from forcing uncomfortable footwear on you. I also bought a "Now People Can't Force Shoes on Your Feet" charm at Spencer's. And it glows in the dark!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 10:04 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rick, you've got to pay better attention. They were forced on me by that evil succubus Glinda. See, I don't actually wear them. But if I did, to answer your question, I'd go to your house and we could drink together.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 10:08 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I went to Oz once. I had a pretty good time, actually.
bill | | Email | 08.11.08 - 11:01 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan - Could you send that charm to Sarah Jessica Parker and the editors of Elle, Harper's Bizarre, Marie Claire and Vogue? Steve Madden, Analeigh Anastasio, Christian Lacroix, Christian Louboutin, Manolo Blahnik, and Jimmy Choo have been trying to break her neck and ours for years.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 11:05 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill - Figures. I kept hearing Glinda mutter something about "My man Bill should find this funny..."

Well next time you see Glinda tell her I'm going to have the last laugh.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 11:44 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - I'm on it. I'm sending Spencers catalogs to all of them.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 11:45 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love this. I really love this.

I love movies that have worked themselves into the fold forever and we have dismissed obvious holes such as this to make way for a flowery story.

I wrote about Uncle Joe from Wily Wonka and how he couldn't walk or help the family until Charlie got that damn golden ticket. And then Presto! And what really should have happened is that the Mom should have slapped ole Grandpa Joe around for laying around on his ass all day - but instead they send him to Wonka's factory.

Anyway, I love this.
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 11:52 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piper - If it makes you feel any better, Grandpa Joe made his way to Oz and Glinda pulled the same stunt on him. I came upon his shrivelled corpse about halfway through my journey, just after finding the Tin Man. Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West had come upon him in the forest and fried him for his shoes. The apple trees told me Glinda had forced a pair of high heel strap up sandals on him and he simply couldn't outrun her. Poor bastard.

That Glinda - Jesus she's evil.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 12:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've stocked up on your favorite drink (Absinthe, natch) and laid out the yellow-brick carpet. Come on down. Scratch that, skip on down.
Rick Olson | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 1:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On my way. Mind if I bring the Tin Man (Elliot Ironsides). His heart's broken again and I think he just wants to drown his sorrows.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 1:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wily Wonka? Is he the crafty, bizarro version of Willy?

And did you know that Elliot Ironsides is Michael Ironside's father?

And... I also bet you didn't know that Piper had a ceiling poster of Michael Ironside when he was in college. He used to talk to it.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 2:47 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox

Yes he is.

No, I didn't know that. That's quite a DNA split from metal to flesh.

No, didn't know that either... but that could come in handy some day. Unfortunately not handy enough for my battle with Glinda.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox,

You sumbitch. I knew that after I typed Wily that I had it wrong and I hoped for all hope against hope that no one would catch it.

And not only do I have a poster of Ironside, I actually have an evolution of Ironside's career from when he played a pimp in Summer's Children to his didn't win an Oscar because the Oscars are so political that they can't realize how brilliant he was as Jean Rasczak in Starship Troopers.
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man... you are really focused on Glinda right now. I respect that.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Micheal Ironside was also in Free Willy or was that Free Wily?

Oh... and here is the poster Piper had. OOPS!!! That's the wrong one!!! Here it is : that's Piper on Ironside's right
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a little advice for your return trip.
Make sure you always wind Tick-Tock ALL the way up.
The Wheelers only look terrifying with their heads down.
People from Oz turn into GREEN knick-knacks.
BRING. A. CHICKEN.
Scott | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox - I have to be, it's all about the payback.

Scott - Thanks for the helpful tips, I couldn't do this without you. I'll make sure I bring you back something from the Emerald City Visitor Center Gift Shop. Maybe a snowglobe.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox, you old space pirate.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 3:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is literally the funniest thing I've ever read.

I can't stop reading it. Seriously, help me...because I can't stop reading it.
Alexandra | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 5:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox,

Nice try, but my cheek-bones are a little more defined and a I'm a little more serious than that dude.

Wait, isn't this post about Wizard of Oz and that terrible bitch Gllinda? That second L was for you Fox.
Piper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 6:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexandra - I'd like to help you but I want you to read it over and over and over until it is clear to you that you need to go with me on my return trip to defeat Glinda. Someone with your talent could distract her long enough for me to catch her with her guard down. Next tornado that lifts my house into the air I'm giving you a call.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piper, Fox - Remember: the common enemy is Glinda. She's doing this to both of you from afar. She's laughing at how you have taken the bait. She's already laying down money on which of you will be the next Grandpa Joe. Don't fall for it. Unite against Glinda NOW!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know what your post just brought to mind, Jonathan? Bob Newhart doing Abner Doubleday invents baseball. "They do what? Run around, what, bases? Heh heh heh. Call me when you've got something for two or three couples."
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damn Piper, you are one good looking guy. I saw that picture and...

What? That's not you? Uh...Oh. Um, you might want to ignore that email I sent you then...And definitely don't look at that JPG attachment. And if you do look at it, that's not me. I swear I don't own anything in leopard skin.

Damn you Glinda!
Bob Turnbull | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - I love Bob Newhart's old comedy bits. I've always loved the Abner Doubleday one. And his King Kong one too would be a precursor to my public scolds. Here I was being influenced by him and I didn't even know it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob - Glinda's powers of manipulation are impressive. In Oz I witnessed firsthand a horrifying event as she toyingly turned the Lullaby League against the Lollipop Guild just before I left. There she was, safe in her bullet proof bubble giggling away as I tried desperately to tell those little guys and gals that they didn't really hate each other. Before I knew it someone pulled a knife and... I can't tell you the rest, the memories are too painful.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.11.08 - 7:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan -

You are so right! I offer a truce to Piper... Bros before Hos, and Bros before Illiteracy.

Also. Is it possible that Glinda sent Alexandra here to get you to drop your guard? Nothing can rattle us dorky bloggers more than a compliment from a lady.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 12:20 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alexandra works only for the forces of good. Now Bill on the other hand.

Anyone else notice he's only commented once - and it was all about how he had no problems in Oz. Like he's trying to feel us out. And how Glinda has a tatoo of Bill on her THIGH! That last part I'm just guessing.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 10:43 am | #

Jeanette MacDonald Glenda Farrell Post

2008-08-12T20:50:00.001-04:00

Glenda Farrell really was a force of nature and I also love her in MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM. Years ago, I was a guest in someone's home in Islington in London and on his staircase he had a number of watercolors of Hollywood actresses of the 20s and 30s - of course my favorite was of Glenda Farrell. The artist really got her pert little mouth down perfectly. I couldn't help but stop and stare every time I ascended or descended, always hoping Glenda would reach out and grab me for a smooch.
Arbogast on His Ass | | Email | 05.20.08 - 11:09 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm so glad to discover that Farrell has so many admirers. When people talk about favorites from the thirties I always want to mention her but figure, "Why bother, no one knows who she is anyway." But since the Siren's site has so many lovers of thirties cinema commenting I felt it was a safe bet and I was right.

And Farrell would definitely grab you for a smooch, not a kiss and that's a part of her charm. I envision sitting at a bar with her, trying to keep up as she pounds back the whiskey all the time referring to me as "Mac" or "Buddy."

And the guest bit at the home in London; you're a lucky bastard Arbo.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 11:48 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw Mystery of the Wax Museum for the first time in my Forgotten Films of 1933. You're so right--Farrell is mesmerizing in it.

As for Jeanette, when she was directed by Lubitsch, she shined like a newly minted penny. He managed to make her sexy and natural. No other director got to her that way. It's a shame, really, because she had a great voice and chemistry on screen.
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 3:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, Amy-Jeanne, who started this whole thing, also loves Glenda Farrell and has posted some great shots of her.

That's such a cute picture of Jeanette I almost want to give I Married an Angel a try!
Campaspe | | Email | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:10 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - Are you back or still blogging from Hawaii? I enjoy watching Wax Museum for Farrell more than anything else, although I like the film as well.

I saw The Merry Widow last year on TCM and enjoyed it and MacDonald very much. I think Kobal was right: Eddy done her in.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campaspe - I'd stick with the early stuff. I admit the Nelson Eddy flicks, of which that is one, drive me to distraction.

And now I must go visit Amy-Jeanne and see what I've been missing.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 4:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going back to the mainland (reluctantly) tomorrow. I was snorkeling with the fishes today, watching Kileaua belch from a new vent (and breathing nasty vog for a short time), peering into the valley where King Kamehameha grew up, and hobnobing at a film festival with David Winning. Also saw Redbelt and Narnia: Prince Caspian. Pretty good vacation!
Marilyn | | Email | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 8:52 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds great, I'm jealous. I'm sure the weather in Chicago will be just as nice as it was in Hawaii (ahem).
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 05.20.08 - 11:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thought you might like to know that this was Jeanette MacDonald's favorite photograph of herself! One of her close friends pointed this out when I was interviewing him for my book. Sharon Rich, author of "Sweethearts, the timeless love story onscreen and off between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy."
Sharon Rich | | Email | Homepage | 05.28.08 - 9:01 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see why. I think it's a great picture, she looks carefree and never more beautiful. It's a rare photo where you can see the subject's charm actually coming through the lens.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 05.28.08 - 9:31 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeanette MacDonald is my alltime favorite movie star and, while I love anything that she was in, her gift as a comedienne was more evident in her earlier movies like "The Love Parade' and "Monte Carlo." I love "Naughty Marietta" and "Rose-Marie," but Nelson could never come close to outshining her. The only leading man she had who was worthy of her awesome screen presence was Gable in "San Francisco." In this movie, she also showed a remarkable talent for drama AND she had great chemistry w/Gable.
Claire Harmon | | Email | 08.12.08 - 7:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claire, I agree about her chemistry with Gable in San Francisco. It's a great movie and I don't think she was ever used to her full capacity as an actress and comedienne.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 8:19 pm | #

Haloscan Sucks Post

2008-08-12T20:45:00.000-04:00

You know what I'll miss about Haloscan? All the laughs we had.
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 11:56 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After time, I'm sure I'll just remember the good about Haloscan. The walks in the park, Saturdays at the museum, that time Haloscan and I were making lobsters in the kitchen and I kept dropping them. Good times, good times.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 12:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haloscan, remember what you said:

"I've never been much good--at least up till now I haven't. You aren't getting any bargain, but I've got a funny feeling that I want to be good. I don't know. Maybe I can't. But I'm gonna try. I'll try hard. I'll try."

Now we've got to admit it:

"Come on, Haloscan, let's finish it the way we started it: on the level. You're not the type that makes a happy home."
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 12:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember when Haloscan and me used to to go the fair every year, and Haloscan would buy all that cotton candy, and I'd say, "Haloscan, you'll never eat all of that." And Haloscan would say, "Oh yeah? Watch me!" Then Haloscan would eat all the cotton candy and get sick, and we'd buy ginger ale, and go back to the parking lot and tell stories until Haloscan felt better.

Sigh... Where has all the time gone?
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 12:54 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn, Bill - Ah the fair. Funny you should write those words Marilyn and you should talk about the fair Bill. That's where I met Haloscan. I put up fifty bucks inside one of the tents where Haloscan was shooting comments and doing things like putting out candles on I.P. Addresses. Boy was Haloscan mad when I turned out to be the better shot. But then Haloscan and I hung out, knocked over a few stores here, a bank there...

Oh those were the times.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 1:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan, bless you for archiving our comments. Think of all that genius that would have disappeared!!!

It would be like losing ancient scrolls in a museum fire, or something. I mean, I expect the future generation of movie bloggers to look at us as the trailblazers, the wise elders.

Someday, David McCulloch Jr. will right a book on The Great HaloScan Collapse of 2008.
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 1:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It should probably be noted that there are six comments (seven, after I hit "publish") in this thread so far, but Haloscan only lists three.
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 1:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Bill, Haloscan continues to scream out "Abandon me for something better." Each comment I leave here kind of hovers in limbo for a minute before finally going through. Interesting, Fox, that you should mention The Great Haloscan Collapse of 2008 because the last week it seems as if Haloscan really is alive and it's slowly and painfully dying. I did a Google search this morning on Haloscan when it was down with the date listed to find the most recent subjects and it appears I am but one of many who have in the last couple of days decided that enough is enough.

I believe this week will see the equivalent of a bank run on Haloscan.

"I want my comments. All 237!"

"Can't you just take a few, for now?"

"I want all 237! Mr. Potter's offering one-liners for every two comments over at Blogger."
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 1:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This may seem off-topic, and I may get laughed at by all you "cool" bloggers, but does it cost any money to start and maintain a blog?
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 2:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depends on the platform. Blogger is absolutely free, which is why I have multiple blogspot blogs I use for testing out things. Others like Wordpress and Movable Type do cost money which is why you see blogspot.com after 98 percent of all blogs out there. And it's simple to set up and maintain allowing you infinitely mallable template and banner designs that can be worked, reworked and changed daily.

That's why I'd recommend it. Absolutely free and simplistic to use. The others have things to recommend them too but I think they are mainly used by professional outlets like magazines and papers. I've tried to decipher Movable Type code for a while now and can't figure out HOW TO CHANGE THE DAMN BANNER!

I did a banner for someone special to Cinema Styles and I'd love to see it up but CAN'T GET IT TO WORK - AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

So, it's Blogspot for me. Just set up a google e-mail and you'll be ready to set up a blog. Go to it Bill.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 2:19 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Jonathan -- if that is your REAL name -- wordpress.com is as free as the day is long, and the interface is much better, AND you can add stuff to it like plugins to do about anything you want.

All those walks in the park, trips to the fair, and Haloscan was secretly in love with me ... guess who's got all your dropped comments?
Rick Olson | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 2:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm... Maybe I will, Millhouse. Maybe I will...
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 2:28 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay Wordpress is free too. But interface better? Maybe the same level. I mean, I can't imagine a simpler interface than "Change Banner - Click" or "Add Text - Click" or "Change Template - Click". I mean Wordpress may be like that too but Blogger, whatever their rep was a few years ago, have made the interface about as straightforward and easy to manipulate as humanly possible.

And I want my dropped comments BACK OLSON!

BTW - Don't miss the Fall Preview Trailer this week. There may be something in it you need to see.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 2:31 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooh, oooh Bill I hope you do. I'd be your first commenter. Cozzalio would say he'd want to be but after the first comment you wouldn't hear from him again for like six months - but I love the guy don't get me wrong. He's just not a serial commenter like you and I Bill. He doesn't understand such things.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 2:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, also, I need a name for my blog. I'm thinking about calling it CLICK HEAR FOR LESBIANNS!!!, but I'm open to suggestions.
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 2:45 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the Lesbi-Anns? Maybe secrets about Ms. Southern that dared not say their name?

I think it should be "Bill's Artsy-Fartsy Movie Fax" (note the cute play on the word "Facts" ... see, it's like a Fax machine. You can use my idea gratis).

And Lepper, that's OlsOn, not OlsEn ... what do I look like: Superman's Freaky Friend? Don't answer that.

I THINK JONATHAN LAPPER IS THE MOST TOTALLY COOL GUY ON THE PLANET!!! Sorry, Jonathan, I just couldn't help but share my admiration of you for all the world to see.
Rick Olson | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 2:58 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill's Artsy-Fartsy Movie Fax"...I won't lie to you, Rick: that idea's got legs. I could surround the title with dancing bags of popcorn and film reels. Plus, the title could be done in lights, like a marquee. Oh, yeah...look out Nikki Finke and Tom O'Neil! There's a new kid in town!!
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 3:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, good Lord. I forgot why we were all here today: because Haloscan eats it. Jonathan, kindly delete the first two of my last three comments, won't you? Thanks. And don't stop being so completely awesome!
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 3:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know what? Before I lose the capability of editing everyone's comments forever I'm going to finally have some fun with it. After all, in a few more days I won't be able to ever again.

So here goes.

Everyone go back and check out the comments you left. They might have something new on them now.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey that was kind of fun. I should've starting using that feature a LONG time ago. Thanks Bill and Rick for thinking so highly of me.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lipper, you cur! How'd you find out my absolute adoration of everything Leaper? I thought it was a deep, dark secret that only I -- and my hairdresser Bruce -- knew.

Now we can never.trust.anything on that interwebby thingy. Leper's got his hand on the edit button!

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Jonathan Lapper
Rick Olson | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before I do that, Jonathan, I would like to point out that you deleted the wrong comments. I wanted to keep the one that told Nikkie Finke and Tom O'Neil to watch out, because they were about to get "Fax"ed. SO THANKS FOR EVERYTHING, SUPER COOL WINNER!
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 3:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow!! This is getting good... Lesbians, Lapper wanting to pop Bill's cherry, Bill getting so excited he posts three times in a row!!!!

And is Coosa Creek Rick implying that you aren't "Jonathan Lapper" ... that you may indeed be Thelma Adams or Peter Travers!?!? Say it ain't so Jo(nathan)!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, is this a joke? Does Haloscan know we've been saying mean things about it?

Hey, wait a minute...Haloscan...HAL...oh my sweet Jesus...
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 3:20 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God, it's come to life ... multiple comments from BILL. Although I must admit, I like seeing Lopper called a loser multiple times ...
Rick Olson | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was forced to change to Movable Type by my "affiliated" website which does about as much for me as Haloscan does for you, Jonathan.
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've just discovered that my fellow bloggers who were in hibernation awaiting to take over blogging duties here when I go into hypersleep ... ... HAVE BEEN KILLED!

I wonder if when I have everything archived and go to delete Haloscan it will sing me a song. I'll be honest, I wouldn't mind hearing "Daisy" while I dismantle it.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:37 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marilyn - Movable Type. One day, somehow we'll figure it out.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:38 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad Haloscan has exploded, Jonathan, because your abuse of the "edit comments" feature is quite disgusting. Even Satlin-esque. No one man should have that much power.
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 3:52 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chaplin-esque, more like it.
Rick Olson | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:58 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right. I won't edit "Satlin-esque" and correct it to "Stalin-esque.' That would be wrong.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 3:58 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About time someone compared me to Chaplin. I also welcome comparisons to Welles, Keaton and Renoir.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:00 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute. Did Fox call me Peter Travers? Now that's just low.

Although, maybe I should adopt his style. You know I think I will. From here on out every movie I see will be both a roller coaster ride AND the best movie of the year so far.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:02 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you'd look very nice in ill-fitting man clothes, carrying a painter's palette, and singing It Wasn't God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels",
Marilyn Ferdinand | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Jonathan would look odd wearing man clothes.
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 4:05 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My picture's not up somewhere is it? Because Marilyn just described me to a tee.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch it Bill - I can still edit that to say something about you instead. Until I force open the pod bay doors this weekend and dismantle Haloscan 9000's brain I retain the godlike power to edit.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey everybody, counting three other comments received on other posts today that makes 37 so far. Know how many comments my Haloscan Manager says I have received today? One.

Oh dear, Haloscan is shitty beyond belief.

Thanks to everyone for ridiculing it here today. It's the best send off I could hope for for it.

Although I do have a couple more normal posts this week where we must respect Haloscan until I can archive those comments.

So if Haloscan stops any of you to ask if something's up, just pretend like you don't know anything. Thanks.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:12 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Watch it Bill - I can still edit that to say something about you instead. Until I force open the pod bay doors this weekend and dismantle Haloscan 9000's brain I retain the godlike power to edit."

Then go ahead and do it!! I don't care anymore! I can't live my life like this! I'm tired of being scared all the time!
bill | | Email | 08.12.08 - 4:13 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aw shucks, I have no desire to wield that kind of power anyway. But I have heard that Haloscan really integrates itself into your html code so if Cinema Styles momentarily disappears or looks completely different this weekend, don't worry. If I have to tear the whole damn blog down and rebuild it from scratch I'll do it. Which should take like 10 or 15 minutes.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope Haloscan isn't reading our lips. Oh wait a minute, if it was reading my lips all it would hear would be me bitching about my miserable job. Whew, that was close.
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:18 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lapper, are you trying to shut Bill up like that poor buck-toothed Chinese girl that got Milli-Vanilli'd during the opening ceremonies???

Stalin + Mao x Hu Jintao = Jonathan Lapper!!!!
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:31 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey this is getting out of hand. First Peter Travers, now that triad of evil? Fox, why do you hate me so?
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:40 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dammit... I'm sorry... I feel bad now.

You are the opposite of them Jonathan! You are the THIS GUY of bloggers!

... I'm getting kind of emotional now....
Fox | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 4:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aw, thanks Fox. You're the best. I'm archiving your comments FIRST!
Jonathan Lapper | | Email | Homepage | 08.12.08 - 6:13 pm | #

Response 2

2008-01-10T11:48:00.001-05:00

Response

2008-01-09T11:24:00.002-05:00