I am back. Sorry I missed ya last night. I started to write a blog but was so tired that I couldn't keep my train of thought going and I kept falling asleep, so I just canceled it and figured I'd try again tonight. Sometimes my job and all my hours and schedule catches up with me. Anyhow, Happy Bach's Birthday, slightly belated (though in Hawaii it is still March 21st as I write). I hope you listened to some JSB music today, and if not, may I suggest the St. John Passion since we are in Lent and closing in on Easter. We already did the more famous St. Matthew Passion, so check out the St. John this time. The great Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky used it to great effect in his film "The Mirror". ///
I did watch a movie tonight, "Charlie Chan In Reno", and I also watched one last night too, "Charlie Chan At The Race Track", which I was trying to review when I nodded off. Since we kind of know the Chan Formula by now, I'll just make a few observations on the CC films in general.
Having seen the original Charlie - Warner Oland - in a few CC flicks of late, I have discovered that I like him as much as his replacement Sidney Toler, who wound up as the more famous Chan. To me, there is little difference between the two, except that the Swedish born Oland, who had Russian blood and high cheekbones, looks more naturally Oriental than does Toler.
Sidney Toler, however, adds just a touch more humor to the character. Charlie Chan is constantly dispensing Chinese Witticisms, and Toler does this with a tad more flair than Oland.
Oland is excellent, though, in all respects, and for me I can't pick a favorite. I was a little bit shocked to discover on IMDB that director H. Bruce Humberstone (who should be among the finalists for Greatest Hollywood Name) kept Warner Oland plied with booze during his Chan shoots, as it was the only way to get the severely alcoholic Oland to complete his scenes. You'd never know it by watching the movies, as he appears to be a consummate professional. But Oland was yet another actor to die young, in his case at 57 of early onset dementia.
There are three different actors who portray Charlie's sons in the various films. Only one son is present in any movie, always as a comic relief sidekick who wants in on the action. Each son wants to prove to Dad that he, too can be a detective, and this always results in a display of ineptness combined with resourcefulness on the part of the sons (Number One, Two and Three). I don't know which actor had the most roles, but Keye Luke was the most renowned and had the longest career, continuing all the way through his starring role in the "Kung Fu" series in the 1970s. In the Charlie Chan films he is very young, with great comedic skills and very acrobatic too. He is Number One Son, and is a riot.
But I actually prefer the other two actors, Victor Sen Yung and Benson Fong, who play Sons #2 & 3, because, while neither has the overall talent of Keye Luke, each one plays his part with an "Americanised Chinese-ness" that is absolutely hilarious in it's earnestness, and even more because of each Son's desire to present himself to Dad as a Jazz Age Hipster who can speak the mile a minute lingo. The faces of actors Sen Young and Fong are so expressive when they speak their lines (almost always in two shots or closeup), that you can't help laughing because you know that they are in on the joke. So yeah, Keye Luke is the major talent as #1 Son, but the other two guys I find to be a laff riot. ///
So there you have some Charlie Chan Particulars (and don't forget H. Bruce Humberstone).......
You are not gonna like the following, and I'll not harp on it or even elaborate, but I am not thrilled by the overabundant crop of Democratic candidates who are running for President in 2020. You may not agree, and that is cool, but to be honest I think it is a pretty bad group, in terms of having any chance of getting elected. Well, forget I mentioned it. :)
I am reading Dr. Farrell's latest book, "McCarthy, Monmouth and The Deep State", which begins with a re-examination of the career of Joseph McCarthy, who was perhaps not quite the absolute political demon he was made out to be (though neither the hero the Right might paint him as). The book ultimately purports to reveal deeper, hidden revelations behind the real reasons for the Army/McCarthy hearings, that have to do with national security secrets like Roswell. With any other author you might take this with a grain of salt, but this is Dr. Farrell, and it is interesting that so much of the National Security apparatus was formed in 1947, the same year as Roswell, and then all the anti-Communist stuff happened shortly thereafter. What I have written here is even less than a simplification of the situation. People need to study the fine points of history, because those in power have hidden the secrets that have created our modern society, and it's deceptive wall of reinforcement (the mass media) behind those fine points that were argued and documented in the late 1940s, when the immense power structure we live under was created.
We didn't always live this way, folks, with atomic bombs and Russians and political intrigue and neverending National Security protocol. We didn't always live in a Shutdown State, with electronic gadgets dispensed to us for distraction.
But that's where we are now. I myself live it every day because of 1989, the biggest secret of them all.
It ain't easy, but I read my books, and I encourage you to do some reading, too, if you are so inclined. Don't waste your time with surface-level revelations from mainstream books that are pushed as "ground breaking" by the media. You won't learn anything of value from them. Instead, seek out legitimate, knowledgeable, trustworthy authors who write about the secrets of America's past, who write about technological secrets and advances that have been buried.....go for books by researchers and experts who are interested in the truth, the real truth. Don't waste your time on anything else. Thanks.
That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment