I think that I am going to be coming back to blogging with some more regularity here.
I think.
2.24.2006
2.20.2006
Test
Just testing out the photo feature. Seems to work for me from PC, but I can not get it to work in Mac.hmmmm
2.15.2006
Back
I am beginning to think that I might get back into this. I am wondering if I may do it on another platform, but I am not sure.
9.09.2005
Top Ten
Here is my first attempt at the random top list.
- Sutherland, Horne and Alexander, Bonynge - Squilla il bronzo del Dio! ... Guerra, guerra!
- Claude Lombard - Les Choeurs d'enfants - J'ai Du Bon Tabac
- David Bowie - A Better Future
- Junior Senior - Shake Your Coconuts
- The Clash - The Card Cheat
- Allen Ginsberg - Do the Meditation Rock
- B52's - Rock Lobster
- Wham! - Bad Boys
- David Bowie - Golden Years
- Aloha - All the Wars
7.22.2005
Grand Theft Auto
I am really mixed over this.
On the one hand I agree that this is not the kind of thing you want in a video game that kids are buying, but, as has been pointed out, much worse is available to them much more easily.
I had something more substantial to say about this recently, but can't remember now.
On the one hand I agree that this is not the kind of thing you want in a video game that kids are buying, but, as has been pointed out, much worse is available to them much more easily.
I had something more substantial to say about this recently, but can't remember now.
7.17.2005
Madagascar and Nemo
Having seen Madagascar yesterday with my son, I was struck by a few things throughout the film, especially in regards to its relationship with Finding Nemo, the films immediate predecessor. So, here are some notes about the two.
First, Madagascar is an inferior film. Nemo had a much more engaging story, more original characters, and, as a result of its setting, felt fresher - jungle animal films are somewhat played out. Another way that its inferiority was marked for me was through the targeted audience of the film. I remember having numerous discussions regarding Nemo with colleagues and students. One of the things that kept coming up was how Nemo was able to engage adult and child audiences. Madagascar and many other films try to do this as well, but fail in that they approach the audiences in a radically different way. Nemo engaged both audiences through the story. It is about both a child and an adult dealing with loss and tragedy; a compelling story in the immediate post 9/11 world. The trials of both bring in the audiences and give them a character to attach to.
Madagascar, however, seeks to engage audiences through dialogue and reference. While the story is ostensibly directed at children, it is about zoo animals and has dancing, singing, and a share of "foul" language, the dialogue and cinematics go for the adults. I was struck by this early in the film when the lion character describes the penguins as "psychotic." The language felt too old for the audience - use crazy and kids will get it, use psychotic and many lose the moment. Beyond this minor moment though, the film was littered with references to other films that children really will not get. A reference to The Planet of the Apes was the most obvious but also the one that fell, to my mind, the most flat as they had to "clean it up" for kids. This marks the feeling I had throughout the film of the filmakers wanting to make references and jokes, but at the expense of what else was happening in the film.
The more interesting comparison for me between the two films, though, is the question of eating other animals. The brief moments in Nemo with Bruce are wonderful for their playfulness in remaking the top predator of the undersea world into a recovering addict. It fits well with the overall theme of the film and the other characters who are working to overcome flaws like a little fin or deepseated fears.
Madagascar does something similar with Alex the lion. He has been raised in the zoo eating steaks, and when they find themselves in Madagascar he has to deal with his role as a top predator and desire to eat his best friend Marty the zebra. In this film, though, this becomes a much bigger issue taking up much of the last part of the film. Somehow, Alex overcomes his desires and rescues his friends; then he is seen to become a sushi loving lion. For Alex, fish are food.
This character trait throws into relief some things about Bruce that are left unanswered and bring up some larger questions. At the end of Nemo, Bruce is friends with Nemo and his father, but it is not clear what he will now eat. What does he put in place of fish for his food?
More interestingly, though, the two bring up the issue of how the films are refiguring this position of the top predator into one that is unthreatening or at least more palatable. It is at once a recognition of the dangerousness that lurks behind these characters and their need to be recuperated for children to enjoy. (I am reminded of watching an animal show about lions recently with my son and how he was shocked to see a group of lions take down and eat, quite graphically, a baby elephant. It didn't traumatize him, but it certainly changed his understanding of lions.)
Some on the web, I will not link, have complained that this is an example of some sort of pollyannaishness - making predators into nice animals. But I think that is too simple as we have long done that without recognizing the things that predators do - especially for lions. I wonder, though, what more is going on here. Again, Nemo seems to make the questions more interesting as there are more obvious issues of gender running though there, but Madagascar makes that as well. Overlaid on that in Madagascar is also the question of race. Alex is white while Marty is black. I would want to think more about this, but I wonder if both films are working with reconfiguring dominant masculinity is a way that makes it less threatening to others, but without really taking way the threat.
First, Madagascar is an inferior film. Nemo had a much more engaging story, more original characters, and, as a result of its setting, felt fresher - jungle animal films are somewhat played out. Another way that its inferiority was marked for me was through the targeted audience of the film. I remember having numerous discussions regarding Nemo with colleagues and students. One of the things that kept coming up was how Nemo was able to engage adult and child audiences. Madagascar and many other films try to do this as well, but fail in that they approach the audiences in a radically different way. Nemo engaged both audiences through the story. It is about both a child and an adult dealing with loss and tragedy; a compelling story in the immediate post 9/11 world. The trials of both bring in the audiences and give them a character to attach to.
Madagascar, however, seeks to engage audiences through dialogue and reference. While the story is ostensibly directed at children, it is about zoo animals and has dancing, singing, and a share of "foul" language, the dialogue and cinematics go for the adults. I was struck by this early in the film when the lion character describes the penguins as "psychotic." The language felt too old for the audience - use crazy and kids will get it, use psychotic and many lose the moment. Beyond this minor moment though, the film was littered with references to other films that children really will not get. A reference to The Planet of the Apes was the most obvious but also the one that fell, to my mind, the most flat as they had to "clean it up" for kids. This marks the feeling I had throughout the film of the filmakers wanting to make references and jokes, but at the expense of what else was happening in the film.
The more interesting comparison for me between the two films, though, is the question of eating other animals. The brief moments in Nemo with Bruce are wonderful for their playfulness in remaking the top predator of the undersea world into a recovering addict. It fits well with the overall theme of the film and the other characters who are working to overcome flaws like a little fin or deepseated fears.
Madagascar does something similar with Alex the lion. He has been raised in the zoo eating steaks, and when they find themselves in Madagascar he has to deal with his role as a top predator and desire to eat his best friend Marty the zebra. In this film, though, this becomes a much bigger issue taking up much of the last part of the film. Somehow, Alex overcomes his desires and rescues his friends; then he is seen to become a sushi loving lion. For Alex, fish are food.
This character trait throws into relief some things about Bruce that are left unanswered and bring up some larger questions. At the end of Nemo, Bruce is friends with Nemo and his father, but it is not clear what he will now eat. What does he put in place of fish for his food?
More interestingly, though, the two bring up the issue of how the films are refiguring this position of the top predator into one that is unthreatening or at least more palatable. It is at once a recognition of the dangerousness that lurks behind these characters and their need to be recuperated for children to enjoy. (I am reminded of watching an animal show about lions recently with my son and how he was shocked to see a group of lions take down and eat, quite graphically, a baby elephant. It didn't traumatize him, but it certainly changed his understanding of lions.)
Some on the web, I will not link, have complained that this is an example of some sort of pollyannaishness - making predators into nice animals. But I think that is too simple as we have long done that without recognizing the things that predators do - especially for lions. I wonder, though, what more is going on here. Again, Nemo seems to make the questions more interesting as there are more obvious issues of gender running though there, but Madagascar makes that as well. Overlaid on that in Madagascar is also the question of race. Alex is white while Marty is black. I would want to think more about this, but I wonder if both films are working with reconfiguring dominant masculinity is a way that makes it less threatening to others, but without really taking way the threat.
7.14.2005
Where I've Lived (Part III)
After living in Tulsa for a time, we moved to Lubbock which, from this picture, is surprisingly brown.
This is the city I have my first real memories from - our red car, some friends, being sick with the chicken pox, playing with Evel Knievel toys and, finally, my first Big Wheel.
We were only there for about a year or so if I remember correctly.
This is the city I have my first real memories from - our red car, some friends, being sick with the chicken pox, playing with Evel Knievel toys and, finally, my first Big Wheel.
We were only there for about a year or so if I remember correctly.
6.28.2005
Liking Drew Again
If this is in fact accurate, then it is all the more reason to love Drew Barrymore again. I lost a geat deal of respect for her after the Charlies Angels films and surroundign publicity. It's good to she she does take her celebrity status seriously.
Back
Finally checking back in after a long absence. I hope to get back to regular posting some time soon.
6.27.2005
Where I've Lived (Part II)
This is another example of somewhere I lived but do not remember. After being born, my family briefly lived in Tulsa, OK. My father is from here and we had, and still have, family in the area.
I am be wrong on the timetable here, but I think this was where we moved first after I was born.
To Friend
Today I had to take Friend to the vet and have her put to sleep. She was diagnosed with diabetes and a hyperthyroid and had lost half of her body weight in the past four months despite eating five times as much food.
She was with me for 13 years, keeping me company through much.
A beautiful cat, a more beautiful companion.
5.20.2005
Where I've Lived
I have liked Google maps since I first saw them, and so thought I would start an occasional series of posts on places I've lived.
Let me begin with where I was born: San Antonio, TX. I don't know more specifics than this, I need to find my birth certificate to get the name of the hospital.
Let me begin with where I was born: San Antonio, TX. I don't know more specifics than this, I need to find my birth certificate to get the name of the hospital.
5.16.2005
Valley Forge
Being a beautiful day, we took a quick trip to Valley Forge this morning and saw some deer and some of the cabins, we then took a walk along the stream. It was a great morning.
TCM for the week
Haven't done this in a while, but thought I would get back to recommending things from TCM for the week.
Monday would be Henry Fonda's 100th birthday, and so TCM is celebrating with a 12 movie salute. I don't have to remind you which one is my favorite, with Jezebel (1938) running a close second.
Tuesday morning sees some Maureen O'Sullivan films from the 1930s for her birthday. Not familiar with many of them apart from Tarzan: I will try and see Hide-Out (1934) with Robert Montgomery, directed by W. S. VanDyke. I love Montgomery and VanDyke is one of the more interesting directors of the period. In the evening is Howard Hawks' Tiger Shark (1932) which I have not seen but could be good.
I'll check in on the rest of the week later.
Monday would be Henry Fonda's 100th birthday, and so TCM is celebrating with a 12 movie salute. I don't have to remind you which one is my favorite, with Jezebel (1938) running a close second.
Tuesday morning sees some Maureen O'Sullivan films from the 1930s for her birthday. Not familiar with many of them apart from Tarzan: I will try and see Hide-Out (1934) with Robert Montgomery, directed by W. S. VanDyke. I love Montgomery and VanDyke is one of the more interesting directors of the period. In the evening is Howard Hawks' Tiger Shark (1932) which I have not seen but could be good.
I'll check in on the rest of the week later.
5.13.2005
Written on the Wind
As noted last weekend, I went to see Sirk's Written on the Wind at The Colonial Theater last Sunday. Overall a wonderful experience.
This was my first visit to The Colonial and, though the interior is a bit run-down, it does still hold the charm that is missing from most modern megaplex cinemas. I like the openness of the theater and the decorations that go into these kinds of buildings. Being in the middle of a city makes it so much more attractive as well - there is nothing like coming out of a good film in the middle of the day onto a busy street with pedestrian and vehicle traffic - as opposed to a gigantic parking lot.
As for the film itself, as you can tell from the title of my blog, I must have enjoyed it. I had never seen the film on this size screen - only on TV and in projection in classrooms. The print, while not as good as the Criterion DVD enhanced print, was quite good with no noticeable splices or even scratches and the color, though not "popping," was sharp.
Here, then, are a few things about the film that caught my eye this time around.
This was my first visit to The Colonial and, though the interior is a bit run-down, it does still hold the charm that is missing from most modern megaplex cinemas. I like the openness of the theater and the decorations that go into these kinds of buildings. Being in the middle of a city makes it so much more attractive as well - there is nothing like coming out of a good film in the middle of the day onto a busy street with pedestrian and vehicle traffic - as opposed to a gigantic parking lot.
As for the film itself, as you can tell from the title of my blog, I must have enjoyed it. I had never seen the film on this size screen - only on TV and in projection in classrooms. The print, while not as good as the Criterion DVD enhanced print, was quite good with no noticeable splices or even scratches and the color, though not "popping," was sharp.
Here, then, are a few things about the film that caught my eye this time around.
- The credits - I had noticed them before and I think someone has written about them (need to look that up), but on the big screen the juxtaposition of the actor names with the characters was clearly inspired. So much is told about the characters through those brief moments - Kyle with the bottle, Mitch at the window, Lucy helpless in bed, and Mary Lee in the dark at the window. Great melodrama.
- The moment that has been growing on me in my last few screenings of the film and came out again this time is when Kyle learns from the Doctor in the soda shop that he has a "weakness." As he walks out, the kid riding the electric horse is wonderful Freudian camp. The look on Kyle's face is stupendous.
- Seeing the film on the large screen really heightened Mary Lee's "dance of death" and her father's fall down the stairs. I am always astounded by the camera work in that shot and on the big screen it looks even better.
- I felt that Mary Lee's "Down by the river" scene played better on the large screen. On TV or in a small screening room, it plays more like TV soap opera and thus a little more campy. On the large screen, the emoting of her face is more visible and the scene itself feels more cinematic - it shakes some of the conventions of the TV soap. Still over-the-top, but not quite as much so.
- Rock Hudson looks so much better on the big screen - helps me to see even more clearly why he was such a big star. The square jaw and good looks are much more impressionable in this format. Heck, they all looked better. That is really one thing that I think gets lost with older films now. The actors were chosen for how they looked, acted, and generally came across on the large screen - we see them now primarily on TV and wonder what the fuss is about.
Scrabble Points
Pholph's Scrabble Generator
My Scrabble© Score is: 28.
What is your score? Get it here.
5.07.2005
Coming Up
Tomorrow at 2pm, The Colonial Theatre in Phoenixville will be screening Douglas Sirk's Written on the Wind (1956). This is one of my all-time favorites films (certainly in my top 5) and one that first got me interested in studying film. It stars Rock Hudson, Lauren Bacall, Robert Stack, and Dorothy Malone and is a tour de force of high 50s melodrama. If you like day or nighttime soaps or enjoy camp entertainment, then this is the film for you. It's got an impotent alcoholic, two friends in love with the same woman, guns under pillows, a crazed nymphomaniac (that phrase is going to bring lots of disappointed people to this site), and phallic symbols galore. All that is presented in lush technicolor which (if it is a good print) will knock your socks off.
Beyond tomorrow, The Colonial is screening Douglas Sirk films on Sundays all through May. Written on the Wind is classic Sirk who, at the time, was considered to be only a standard studio director turning out lush adult melodramas that would never last. His work was revived in the 1970s by film theorists who began to see his films as careful critiques of 1950s American life. Most recently, Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven (2002) was a feature homage to Sirk following on his use of cinematography, color, plot, and themes.
Anyway, if you have time tomorrow, check it out.
Beyond tomorrow, The Colonial is screening Douglas Sirk films on Sundays all through May. Written on the Wind is classic Sirk who, at the time, was considered to be only a standard studio director turning out lush adult melodramas that would never last. His work was revived in the 1970s by film theorists who began to see his films as careful critiques of 1950s American life. Most recently, Todd Haynes' Far From Heaven (2002) was a feature homage to Sirk following on his use of cinematography, color, plot, and themes.
Anyway, if you have time tomorrow, check it out.
4.13.2005
Dogville
[Still in editing stage]
Much as his 2000 film Dancer in the Dark used the intersection of the American film musical and maternal melodrama film genres to form a commentary on working America, so Dogville mixes a variety of styles, genres, and references to again comment on America and, this time, its relationship to poverty and the poor.
One of the most obvious references of this film, made through the minimalist sets, is to Thornton Wilder's play "Our Town." What this brings to the film is the sense that it is operating as a counter to that play's portrayal of the quintissential American town - Dogville opposed to Grover's Corners. Whereas "Our Town," through Emily, works to reveal the need to appreciate life as it happens since life will not last, Dogville reveals, through Grace, that the mere enjoyment of life has its limits. While Emily comes to realize after her death that the living do not get life, Grace comes to realize that the realities of life often overcome it's appreciation. Throughout the film, Grace submits to the charms of Dogville and its residents out of, first, an enjoyment of the experience of living that life in the mountains. When it all comes apart - after the initial rape and the smashing of her figurines - she continues to submit to Dogville out of a feeling of obligation to the kindness they once showed her. She remains willing to forgive them for everything out of an understanding of the risk they think they are taking.
The second reference that struck me through the film was its connections to the "Runaway Bride" version of screwball comedy from the 1930s typified by It Happened One Night. In terms of a general plot, Dogville and Happened share a number of similarities. They both concern a wealthy woman running away from the responsibilites and obligations of her class - marriage or ascencion to power. In both films the women meets with and is taken in by a man who is out of work, poor, and at odds with those who are his immediate superiors - an editor or the town. Both men see the woman as a way back into the graces of those above him, a way of showing his talent and, by extension, his necessity to those above him. Ultimately, in each, the woman learns something from the man about the American spirit and he learns from her about love.
In the specifics, however, Dogville rewrites the uplifting Capra film into a scathing critique of or perhaps revelation about American poverty. Here, Von Trier uses to scaffolding of the screwball comedy to write an exceedingly dark film that reveals the lengths of exploitation that individuals will go to when they occupy power. While Happened toys with the idea, and dismisses it, through the "Walls of Jericho" and threats to the travelling salesman, Dogville plays them out and pulls the walls down and makes good on the threats. The implication here being that this is what "real" people would be more inclined to do.
Much as his 2000 film Dancer in the Dark used the intersection of the American film musical and maternal melodrama film genres to form a commentary on working America, so Dogville mixes a variety of styles, genres, and references to again comment on America and, this time, its relationship to poverty and the poor.
One of the most obvious references of this film, made through the minimalist sets, is to Thornton Wilder's play "Our Town." What this brings to the film is the sense that it is operating as a counter to that play's portrayal of the quintissential American town - Dogville opposed to Grover's Corners. Whereas "Our Town," through Emily, works to reveal the need to appreciate life as it happens since life will not last, Dogville reveals, through Grace, that the mere enjoyment of life has its limits. While Emily comes to realize after her death that the living do not get life, Grace comes to realize that the realities of life often overcome it's appreciation. Throughout the film, Grace submits to the charms of Dogville and its residents out of, first, an enjoyment of the experience of living that life in the mountains. When it all comes apart - after the initial rape and the smashing of her figurines - she continues to submit to Dogville out of a feeling of obligation to the kindness they once showed her. She remains willing to forgive them for everything out of an understanding of the risk they think they are taking.
The second reference that struck me through the film was its connections to the "Runaway Bride" version of screwball comedy from the 1930s typified by It Happened One Night. In terms of a general plot, Dogville and Happened share a number of similarities. They both concern a wealthy woman running away from the responsibilites and obligations of her class - marriage or ascencion to power. In both films the women meets with and is taken in by a man who is out of work, poor, and at odds with those who are his immediate superiors - an editor or the town. Both men see the woman as a way back into the graces of those above him, a way of showing his talent and, by extension, his necessity to those above him. Ultimately, in each, the woman learns something from the man about the American spirit and he learns from her about love.
In the specifics, however, Dogville rewrites the uplifting Capra film into a scathing critique of or perhaps revelation about American poverty. Here, Von Trier uses to scaffolding of the screwball comedy to write an exceedingly dark film that reveals the lengths of exploitation that individuals will go to when they occupy power. While Happened toys with the idea, and dismisses it, through the "Walls of Jericho" and threats to the travelling salesman, Dogville plays them out and pulls the walls down and makes good on the threats. The implication here being that this is what "real" people would be more inclined to do.
4.09.2005
TCM this week
Let's see what is coming up this week on TCM.
Today, Monday 4/11, continues April Fools with Charlie Chaplin all day. I haven't really watched enough to say too much, but I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of his. There is something about the comedy style that I don't like - I am tempted to say that it is too aggressive for my taste, but I need to see more to clarify that.
Tuesday night continues the Errol Flynn tribute. I watched more of The Adventures of Robin Hood last week than I had seen in quite some time, but still found it lacking some of his other films. I certainly see his charm, though. He may not have been the most talented actor, but the camera sure does love him and his voice is superb. Anyway, tomorrow night there are no films of his I have seen, but The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936), Escape Me Never (1947), and Dodge City (1939) sound the most promising to me. I take that back, though. I did see Virginia City (1940) last month and found it about typical for a Flynn vehicle - good action with some romance with Flynn sving the day all around. Bogart makes a good villain here.
Wednesday continues April Fools with "Classic Stage to Screen Comedies." All look great, but I highly recommend The Front Page (1931), Dinner at Eight (1933), and The Women (1939).
Thursday morning is a brief tribute to Lee Tracy who, frankly, I have never noticed or heard of. I'm trying to put a face to the name. TCM will screen five films that morning from 1932 to 1937. I will try and see a couple to see who this is. To top it off, some of the titles sound interesting.
Friday's April Fools features Brown & Carney in the morning and Abbott & Costello at night. I haven't seen any A&C since I was a kid, so I'm not sure how I will feel about them now. I may try and see some with my son to see if there is a similar reaction as there was to Laurel and Hardy. I am going to suspect not as the medium will have changed between the early 1930s and the 1940s. I suspect that the humor of A & C is much more narrative driven and thus might not be as accessible to a four year old.
Enjoy the week!
Today, Monday 4/11, continues April Fools with Charlie Chaplin all day. I haven't really watched enough to say too much, but I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of his. There is something about the comedy style that I don't like - I am tempted to say that it is too aggressive for my taste, but I need to see more to clarify that.
Tuesday night continues the Errol Flynn tribute. I watched more of The Adventures of Robin Hood last week than I had seen in quite some time, but still found it lacking some of his other films. I certainly see his charm, though. He may not have been the most talented actor, but the camera sure does love him and his voice is superb. Anyway, tomorrow night there are no films of his I have seen, but The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936), Escape Me Never (1947), and Dodge City (1939) sound the most promising to me. I take that back, though. I did see Virginia City (1940) last month and found it about typical for a Flynn vehicle - good action with some romance with Flynn sving the day all around. Bogart makes a good villain here.
Wednesday continues April Fools with "Classic Stage to Screen Comedies." All look great, but I highly recommend The Front Page (1931), Dinner at Eight (1933), and The Women (1939).
Thursday morning is a brief tribute to Lee Tracy who, frankly, I have never noticed or heard of. I'm trying to put a face to the name. TCM will screen five films that morning from 1932 to 1937. I will try and see a couple to see who this is. To top it off, some of the titles sound interesting.
Friday's April Fools features Brown & Carney in the morning and Abbott & Costello at night. I haven't seen any A&C since I was a kid, so I'm not sure how I will feel about them now. I may try and see some with my son to see if there is a similar reaction as there was to Laurel and Hardy. I am going to suspect not as the medium will have changed between the early 1930s and the 1940s. I suspect that the humor of A & C is much more narrative driven and thus might not be as accessible to a four year old.
Enjoy the week!
4.03.2005
TCM catching up
Wow, has it been that long? Needless to say, things have been very busy, but I'm glad to be able to get back into things.
April on TCM looks good. The April Fools selections look great and, as I mentioned earlier, I am finding myself to be a fan of Errol Flynn, so I am looking forward to seeing more of his films.
Let's get into things.
First, for the past week, on Firday I caught some of the day long Laurel and Hardy, and it was great. My son (4) and I watched The Music Box and loved it. He keeps asking for it. I also taped Blotto and hope to watch it with him this week.
Let's see what's coming up this week.
All day tomorrow, Monday, is a spotlight on Charley Chase featuring silents of his the whole day. I hope to be able to watch at least a few of them.
Tuesday must be a dream day for me - Bette Davis all morning and then Errol Flynn all night. I wish I could watch all day. I recommend all the Davis films, but especially Of Human Bondage (1934) and All This and Heaven Too (1940) which I, surprisingly, saw first only two months ago. Outstanding.
As for the Flynn, TCM is featuring a new documentary on him at 8:00 and 11:30 which should be interesting. Sandwiched between is The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), which I am not too fond of, but the later showing of the documentary is followed by Captain Blood (1935) and They Died With their Boots On (1941). The latter is a film that would consistently make my top ten list should I construct one. (Maybe I will.) Every time it is on, I must watch it even though I find it at times a horrible film.
Wednesday sees another Davis film, It's Love I'm After (1937) with Leslie Howard and Olivia DeHaviland. That evening is a three film tribute to Preston Sturges, with Sullivan's Travels (1941), The Lady Eve (1941), and The Palm Beach Story (1942). Of the three, Eve is by far my favorite and, as I mentioned last month, one of my all time favorite films. (Two in two nights!).
Thursday slows down a little for me, but features films by Bogart in the evening. To Have and Have Not (1944) remains a must see even though it is often overshadowed by Casablanca (1942) and The Big Sleep (1946). Not to take anything from those films, but Have remains special.
Friday returns to April Fools with some Marx Bros. films in the day and evening. I am only now seeing more of these, so I am not sure what to recommend at the moment. I'll get back to this one.
I'm going to stop here for the moment and will continue later.
April on TCM looks good. The April Fools selections look great and, as I mentioned earlier, I am finding myself to be a fan of Errol Flynn, so I am looking forward to seeing more of his films.
Let's get into things.
First, for the past week, on Firday I caught some of the day long Laurel and Hardy, and it was great. My son (4) and I watched The Music Box and loved it. He keeps asking for it. I also taped Blotto and hope to watch it with him this week.
Let's see what's coming up this week.
All day tomorrow, Monday, is a spotlight on Charley Chase featuring silents of his the whole day. I hope to be able to watch at least a few of them.
Tuesday must be a dream day for me - Bette Davis all morning and then Errol Flynn all night. I wish I could watch all day. I recommend all the Davis films, but especially Of Human Bondage (1934) and All This and Heaven Too (1940) which I, surprisingly, saw first only two months ago. Outstanding.
As for the Flynn, TCM is featuring a new documentary on him at 8:00 and 11:30 which should be interesting. Sandwiched between is The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), which I am not too fond of, but the later showing of the documentary is followed by Captain Blood (1935) and They Died With their Boots On (1941). The latter is a film that would consistently make my top ten list should I construct one. (Maybe I will.) Every time it is on, I must watch it even though I find it at times a horrible film.
Wednesday sees another Davis film, It's Love I'm After (1937) with Leslie Howard and Olivia DeHaviland. That evening is a three film tribute to Preston Sturges, with Sullivan's Travels (1941), The Lady Eve (1941), and The Palm Beach Story (1942). Of the three, Eve is by far my favorite and, as I mentioned last month, one of my all time favorite films. (Two in two nights!).
Thursday slows down a little for me, but features films by Bogart in the evening. To Have and Have Not (1944) remains a must see even though it is often overshadowed by Casablanca (1942) and The Big Sleep (1946). Not to take anything from those films, but Have remains special.
Friday returns to April Fools with some Marx Bros. films in the day and evening. I am only now seeing more of these, so I am not sure what to recommend at the moment. I'll get back to this one.
I'm going to stop here for the moment and will continue later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)