(this blog was begun Sunday night, September 29, 2019)
Tonight I watched a minor masterpiece from Criterion, called "Overlord" (1975). I use the word minor as a qualifier only because the film seems rather unknown. I had never heard of it, though from reading on IMDB I see that it won awards at a film festival or two. It does seem to have disappeared since that time, though, at least until Criterion resurrected it, and oh what a fine job they have done.
"Overlord", directed by a filmmaker named Stuart Cooper, is the story of a young soldier's induction and boot camp training in the English army up to the point of the D-Day invasion of Normandy in World War Two. Cooper uses stock footage of WW2 battle scenes in a way I've never seen before, by blending them seamlessly with the fictional imagery of the story, which was shot by the great John Alcott, one of the all time cinematographers. The artful use of both actual footage and that which was produced for the film creates a feeling of being there, on the ground with the soldiers in the lead-up to battle, that we would not see again in a WW2 film - as far as D-Day was concerned - until the release of "Saving Private Ryan" in 1998.
The movie opens at the home of the protagonist, "Tom", a boy who looks no older than twenty. He is preparing to get on the train that will take him to the military base to which he has been assigned by the British draft board. As Tom packs his suitcase, his father wishes him well in the Stiff Upper Lip way of the English people. Tom looks a bit lost, but resigned to his duty. From the way the scene is portrayed, you can feel feel him losing his youth and his choices in life right there at his doorstep, all because of a war he didn't start, but must fight in to save the existence of his country.
God Bless the English, you know? If it weren't for them, and us Americans, and those pesky Russians, we might not have a world right now. But especially the English, because they were at the front lines in the beginning.
Young Tom, on his way to become a soldier, is an innocent figure. He has no one in his life that he is close to save his parents and his dog Tina, whom he loves dearly (and who would not love a dog named Tina?). When he settles in at boot camp, he is teased a bit by the other enlistees for his lack of experience with women. This aspect is not overplayed though (and he will meet a nice young lass very soon anyway), because of the gravity of the more important matter at hand; the soldiers know an invasion of France is imminent. Director Cooper has chosen to exhibit the dread of being in this situation through careful use of foreshadowing. Brief scenes of the Normandy landing are intercut with the main sequences of the soldiers' discussions in camp prior to the invasion. Even earlier, while he is still on his way to the military base, we are shown that Tom may be having premonitions of his own fate. As he nods off periodically while riding the train, horrific images of battle flash by on the screen. Is Tom dreaming of his future?
At regular intervals, as the film cuts between the narrative and the interwoven scenes of what may lie ahead, we see the English countryside flowing past beneath us in a series of sweeping aerial shots taken from inside various British warplanes. These shots are meditative, and we can imagine the young soldiers flying in a troop transport on their way to the front in France, watching their homeland recede away as the opposing forces of fear and stoicism build inside them. The use of the aerial flyover footage as a hypnotic device gives the film a dreamlike quality, as if what is happening can be something the young men can awaken from.
But of course it is all too real, as Cooper also shows us with amazing and horrific real-time footage of Germany being bombed to smithereens, and also the aftermath of that destruction. It looks like the end of the world, and as I have remarked many times, to me, it is miraculous that anyone survived World War Two, which - from what I can see and have read about - was the most hellish collective experience of mankind in all it's history.
"Overlord" is a war movie - and one of the best and most important WW2 pictures you will ever see - but it's also an Art Film, where the director uses images of war and the preparation for war to get us to think about whether war is an inevitability within the human condition.
Must we fight wars? Could a war be called off if everyone realized suddenly how utterly inhuman war is? Or does the fact of simply preparing for a war and having war in our mindset - as a viable option - make war a necessary evil?
World War Two was certainly necessary, to stop the most evil regime that ever walked the Earth, but perhaps it was meant to be the Last War, even though that has not proven to be the historical outcome.
"Overlord" is a masterpiece of which there are not enough thumbs in the world to rate it with. I cannot recommend it highly enough, it is a must see in every respect and it will get you to thinking about the above questions, and others of your own no doubt. My goodness what a film. ////
Well, it's me again and it's now Monday afternoon. I am headed out to the store, then back to Pearl's as usual. Boy, did that Rams game ever suck yesterday! Them Rams better fix things soon or it's gonna be a long season for them.
But go Dodgers! This is finally gonna be our year, we're gonna win the World Series for the first time since 1988.
Right? :)
See you tonight at the usual time! Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, September 30, 2019
Sunday, September 29, 2019
"The Explosive Generation" starring William Shatner, Patty McCormack and Lee Kinsolving
Sorry I missed you last night. Grimsley came over and wanted to show me a lot of stuff he taped from recent episodes of the Seth Myers show, regarding the big Trump news of the past week. Myers tees off on Trump nightly, and he was having a field day with the recent revelations, and especially with koo-koo bird Rudy Giuliani's appearances on the cable news shows. We watched all of that material and had a few laughs, even though what is happening in our country isn't a bit funny.
But tonight I'm back, and I do have a movie : "The Explosive Generation" (1961), an obscure gem I discovered in a library database search using the terms "Metro Goldwyn Mayer Limited Edition Collection", which is MGM's version of Warner Archives, only using a lot more words, haha.
"The Explosive Generation" stars a young and dignified William Shatner as a high school teacher who finds himself at the center of a heated controversy after his students ask for a discussion of sex education in his classroom. Shatner explains to them that health class is the place for that, but then an outspoken student (Patty McCormack of "The Bad Seed" fame) stands up to say "we don't mean the birds and the bees. We already know about that! What we want is a discussion of sex as it relates to teenagers. How far should a girl go? What should she do if her boyfriend pressures her, if she loves him and doesn't want to lose him"?
Shatner is taken aback by the frankness of her questions, but her classmates stand behind her. McCormack's desire for such a talk, in class with a teacher that all the students trust and admire, has been brought about by a night at a party - that we viewers are shown - at which she and her boyfriend stay overnight along with another young couple. By the direction, dialogue and editing, we are led to assume they have "gone all the way", and that Patty McCormack is now, in the cold light of day, confused and uncomfortable with her decision to "do it" with her boyfriend. Because this has turned into a rumor around the school, she has proposed to teacher William Shatner that the class should discuss the issue of sex in general, as it applies to young people who have yet to reach adulthood.
As mentioned, Shatner does not want to do this, and his position is understandable, especially in 1961. He tells the students that, according to the Board of Education it is the parent's prerogative to inform their children about sex. Patty McCormack reply speaks for all the kids : "You try talking to my Mom about it"!, and of course in 1961, it is unlikely that many Moms and daughters were having explicit conversations about the matter. Shatner feels the students' plight, and he proposes a compromise. Instead of an open discussion, he suggests that each student write out their questions, opinions and concerns, and hand them in, unsigned and anonymous. The students look up to him as a leader, so they take to his idea, and they write out their papers and turn them in. Shatner has even included an option for those who are uncomfortable to not write anything at all.
After all the papers are turned in, Shatner returns to class the next day to offer his advice on what the students have written. But before he can do so, the school principal (Edward Platt, who played "The Chief" on "Get Smart") comes storming into the classroom, accompanied by Patty McCormack's uptight mother. The rumor of Patty's overnight stay with her boyfriend has now been inflated even more by the paper she wrote under Shatner's suggestion. All the kids in school are speculating about what it says. The rumor that she "went all the way" with her boyfriend is now magnified and even the students' parents are aware of it. All hell breaks loose upon this supposed news, and in short order all of the involved parents (two couples' worth) are pounding on the principal's door, demanding to know what filth William Shatner has been pushing on their youngsters.
While this story could seem quaint in our prurient age, it was in fact quite representative of the sexual mores of the time. I realise I was only a year old, lol, when the film came out, but history shows that things were still pretty square, culturally speaking, at the turn of the decade. It wasn't until later in the 1960s that attitudes loosened up, during the Free Love era that began around 1967. But you can see that as early as 1961, student movements were beginning, and that is what the movie is really about.
Young people, perhaps emboldened by the beginnings of the rock n' roll era five years earlier, were starting to speak their minds. In the film, the desire for a sex discussion is played straight and not for anyone's leering interest. The high-schoolers are portrayed as earnest and their questions genuine. They seem to be the level-headed ones and their parents the hysterics. Indeed, the pot has been stirred up in the first place by the parents' refusal to talk to their kids in depth about sex. Thus they have gone to their teacher for help and he is now caught in the middle.
"The Explosive Generation" is a surprisingly sober-minded film that examines it's subject matter in a very intelligent way. The young actors are uniformly good, especially Lee Kinsolving as the student leader. He had a short life (passed away at 36) but had he lived he would no doubt have gone on to a long career. His portrayal exemplifies the type of steadfast, confident youths who went on to organize on college campuses a few years later. Buy the 1963, students were helping to push for civil rights, and by 1968 were leading the way in protesting the Vietnam War.
Their generation went on to become the most politically and socially active in my lifetime.
I give "The Explosive Generation" Two Very Big Thumbs Up. As noted, it is a serious film about sex as it regards those who are just coming under it's influence : the hormonally charged youth.
It is photographed in crisp black and white, with outdoor settings in Santa Monica, and the dvd print is pristine. See it for a sign of the times, when the times they were a 'changin. :) /////
Well, it's me here, your reviewer. It's now Sunday afternoon, and the Rams are getting clobbered by Tampa Bay.......(but wait, now they're catching up). Still, not good to be getting whupped by TB, who generally suck. But...........sports.
It's only sports. Right?
Wrong! It's sports, doggonnitt! And it drives me nuts when my teams lose!
That's why I trick myself by saying "well, it's only sports". Darn it. :)
We had good singing in church this morn, and now I will head out for some afternoon shopping, maybe even go down to Big Five in search of some new shoes. Have a great afternoon and I'll see you tonight!
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
But tonight I'm back, and I do have a movie : "The Explosive Generation" (1961), an obscure gem I discovered in a library database search using the terms "Metro Goldwyn Mayer Limited Edition Collection", which is MGM's version of Warner Archives, only using a lot more words, haha.
"The Explosive Generation" stars a young and dignified William Shatner as a high school teacher who finds himself at the center of a heated controversy after his students ask for a discussion of sex education in his classroom. Shatner explains to them that health class is the place for that, but then an outspoken student (Patty McCormack of "The Bad Seed" fame) stands up to say "we don't mean the birds and the bees. We already know about that! What we want is a discussion of sex as it relates to teenagers. How far should a girl go? What should she do if her boyfriend pressures her, if she loves him and doesn't want to lose him"?
Shatner is taken aback by the frankness of her questions, but her classmates stand behind her. McCormack's desire for such a talk, in class with a teacher that all the students trust and admire, has been brought about by a night at a party - that we viewers are shown - at which she and her boyfriend stay overnight along with another young couple. By the direction, dialogue and editing, we are led to assume they have "gone all the way", and that Patty McCormack is now, in the cold light of day, confused and uncomfortable with her decision to "do it" with her boyfriend. Because this has turned into a rumor around the school, she has proposed to teacher William Shatner that the class should discuss the issue of sex in general, as it applies to young people who have yet to reach adulthood.
As mentioned, Shatner does not want to do this, and his position is understandable, especially in 1961. He tells the students that, according to the Board of Education it is the parent's prerogative to inform their children about sex. Patty McCormack reply speaks for all the kids : "You try talking to my Mom about it"!, and of course in 1961, it is unlikely that many Moms and daughters were having explicit conversations about the matter. Shatner feels the students' plight, and he proposes a compromise. Instead of an open discussion, he suggests that each student write out their questions, opinions and concerns, and hand them in, unsigned and anonymous. The students look up to him as a leader, so they take to his idea, and they write out their papers and turn them in. Shatner has even included an option for those who are uncomfortable to not write anything at all.
After all the papers are turned in, Shatner returns to class the next day to offer his advice on what the students have written. But before he can do so, the school principal (Edward Platt, who played "The Chief" on "Get Smart") comes storming into the classroom, accompanied by Patty McCormack's uptight mother. The rumor of Patty's overnight stay with her boyfriend has now been inflated even more by the paper she wrote under Shatner's suggestion. All the kids in school are speculating about what it says. The rumor that she "went all the way" with her boyfriend is now magnified and even the students' parents are aware of it. All hell breaks loose upon this supposed news, and in short order all of the involved parents (two couples' worth) are pounding on the principal's door, demanding to know what filth William Shatner has been pushing on their youngsters.
While this story could seem quaint in our prurient age, it was in fact quite representative of the sexual mores of the time. I realise I was only a year old, lol, when the film came out, but history shows that things were still pretty square, culturally speaking, at the turn of the decade. It wasn't until later in the 1960s that attitudes loosened up, during the Free Love era that began around 1967. But you can see that as early as 1961, student movements were beginning, and that is what the movie is really about.
Young people, perhaps emboldened by the beginnings of the rock n' roll era five years earlier, were starting to speak their minds. In the film, the desire for a sex discussion is played straight and not for anyone's leering interest. The high-schoolers are portrayed as earnest and their questions genuine. They seem to be the level-headed ones and their parents the hysterics. Indeed, the pot has been stirred up in the first place by the parents' refusal to talk to their kids in depth about sex. Thus they have gone to their teacher for help and he is now caught in the middle.
"The Explosive Generation" is a surprisingly sober-minded film that examines it's subject matter in a very intelligent way. The young actors are uniformly good, especially Lee Kinsolving as the student leader. He had a short life (passed away at 36) but had he lived he would no doubt have gone on to a long career. His portrayal exemplifies the type of steadfast, confident youths who went on to organize on college campuses a few years later. Buy the 1963, students were helping to push for civil rights, and by 1968 were leading the way in protesting the Vietnam War.
Their generation went on to become the most politically and socially active in my lifetime.
I give "The Explosive Generation" Two Very Big Thumbs Up. As noted, it is a serious film about sex as it regards those who are just coming under it's influence : the hormonally charged youth.
It is photographed in crisp black and white, with outdoor settings in Santa Monica, and the dvd print is pristine. See it for a sign of the times, when the times they were a 'changin. :) /////
Well, it's me here, your reviewer. It's now Sunday afternoon, and the Rams are getting clobbered by Tampa Bay.......(but wait, now they're catching up). Still, not good to be getting whupped by TB, who generally suck. But...........sports.
It's only sports. Right?
Wrong! It's sports, doggonnitt! And it drives me nuts when my teams lose!
That's why I trick myself by saying "well, it's only sports". Darn it. :)
We had good singing in church this morn, and now I will head out for some afternoon shopping, maybe even go down to Big Five in search of some new shoes. Have a great afternoon and I'll see you tonight!
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, September 27, 2019
"The Gorgeous Hussy" starring Joan Crawford, Melvyn Douglas and Robert Taylor
(this blog was begun the night of Thursday September 26, 2019)
Tonight I watched another costume drama, only this time - instead of being set in England in the Middle Ages - we were in Washington D.C. in the 1820s. The movie was "The Gorgeous Hussy" (1936), starring Joan Crawford as a real life woman named Margaret "Peggy" O'Neil, the daughter of a local innkeeper who, because of her vivacious personality and youthful beauty, became a favorite lady of some of the D.C. elite at that time. As the movie opens, Congressman John Randolph (Melvyn Douglas again) is debating Daniel Webster (Sidney Toler of "Charlie Chan" fame) over the constitutionality of states' rights vs. the mandate of the Federal Government. Joan Crawford has known Randolph since she was an adolescent and has been secretly in love with him all this time (much like last night's teenybopper who was in love with Melvyn Douglas in "Woman In The Shadows").
My generation only knew Melvyn from his senior citizen roles, when he was in his eighties, but when he was young he was quite handsome and suave, in a slightly evil way. Here, he is a States' Rights champion, meaning he is a Virginian first and an American second, as he himself declares. This would make him an far right Republican nowdays, but in the movie he is a nobler figure. In the matter of romance he rebuffs Crawford's advances, for the same reason Ralph Bellamy rebuffed the kid in last night's flick : because he thinks she is too young. Peggy is young, but she is an adult by this time, and when John Randolph won't have her, she gives in to the eager attentions of an equally young Robert Taylor, so handsome that he looks pretty. Taylor - who is top billed but isn't the actual lead - plays a Navy man just arrived in port. He is full of vim and vigor and sweeps Crawford off her feet upon their first meeting. By the end of the first act they are married, and she has pretended to have forgotten all about John Randolph, though in truth she can barely contain herself.
Shortly after this, about halfway through the film, we are settling into a new context : the candidacy of Andrew Jackson for President. The year is 1828. Peggy O'Neil knows Jackson through her father and refers to him as Uncle Andy. Jackson is portrayed by the venerable Lionel Barrymore as a cantankerous but deeply patriotic old coot. He is dignified yet rough hewn, articulate yet versed in Southern slang. He is also shown, briefly, to have racist tendencies, but overall he is depicted as a great American statesman. There are many opinions of the real life Andrew Jackson, one of the most controversial Presidents in our history, but for the purpose of our review we will stick with Barrymore's rendering of him as a flawed but upright leader who in the end did the right thing by upholding Federalism in an attempt to avert the Civil War.
The movie is not about that at all, however. In Hollywood tradition, it's a love story about the life of Peggy O'Neil, with an adjoining theme about the life-bonding love between President Jackson and his wife Rachel, who was scorned and persecuted by the ladies of the Washington social circle, because she was a small town Tennessee woman who smoked a pipe. When Jackson became President, he circled the wagons around his wife to protect her from ridicule. She died before the end of his term, and after she was gone he adopted Peggy O'Neil, his favorite "niece" as an unofficial adviser.
It is after this point in the film, slightly over halfway through, that the dramatic tension of the story kicks in. It centers on both Jackson's tumultuous presidency and the public's non-acceptance of Peggy, living in the White House as his aide. If you Google her picture (a painted portrait), you will see she was quite beautiful.
As the struggle between states' rights and the authority of the Federal Union becomes heated, President Jackson knows he must rid himself of Peggy's presence, which has become an added complaint of his opponents, so he sends her off to Europe with Franchot Tone, his secretary of war.
This results in a marriage of convenience between Tone and Peggy, and nowdays she is known historically as Peggy Eaton, the wife of John Eaton who was Andrew Jackson's Secretary of War. In truth however, her heart always belonged to Senator John Randolph, and as she will find out, he has secretly loved her the entire time, as well.
The final act will show what becomes of their love, and also of Jackson's presidency. Will he be able to hold the Union together? Do we know our American history? What if Donald Trump had been president in 1828?
Oh Lord, that S.O.B has me digressing.......
But forget him and let's return our attention to the movie. It's a little strange to see Joan Crawford, who always played the most modern of women, in a period piece. She was a good actress, though, and acquits herself quite well as Peggy O'Neil. MGM apparently spared no expense in assembling an all-star male cast to support her - Melvyn Douglas! Robert Taylor! Lionel Barrymore! Franchot Tone! Sidney Toler! and......did I mention a young Jimmy Stewart (pronounced Jimmay Schtooart) in a minor role as Peggy's a local boy with a lifelong crush on Peggy? Yeah, he's in it too.
I mean, how's that for a cast? The actors all work well together and the drama is maintained, but there's something missing, maybe a feeling of spontaneity. At times, the scenes feel over rehearsed, a little stilted, as though the actors are too aware they are making a historical film and want to get the dialogue and mannerisms of the time exactly right. Overall, though, I thought it was a very good film about a subject - Peggy O'Neil - I had never heard of. I didn't know much about Andrew Jackson either. It's quite a story, with a beautiful romance, and everything looks great. The movie was nominated for three Academy Awards, one for cinematography, and another for Beulah Bondi's supporting role as Rachel, the pipe smoking wife of the president. Bondi was a legendary character actress, and oh, did I mention the amazing cast in this film? :)
Two Very Big Thumbs Up, then, for "The Gorgeous Hussy". It's another recommendation for fans of costume dramas, and this time you get some American history thrown in for good measure. /////
Well, here I am and it's Friday afternoon now. I have a few minutes to read my book "The Rendlesham Enigma" (almost 700 pages long!) and then I shall head out to the produce market before returning to Pearl's for my evening shift. I hope you are enjoying your Friday, and I will see you tonight, with megatons of love sent your way in the meantime!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight I watched another costume drama, only this time - instead of being set in England in the Middle Ages - we were in Washington D.C. in the 1820s. The movie was "The Gorgeous Hussy" (1936), starring Joan Crawford as a real life woman named Margaret "Peggy" O'Neil, the daughter of a local innkeeper who, because of her vivacious personality and youthful beauty, became a favorite lady of some of the D.C. elite at that time. As the movie opens, Congressman John Randolph (Melvyn Douglas again) is debating Daniel Webster (Sidney Toler of "Charlie Chan" fame) over the constitutionality of states' rights vs. the mandate of the Federal Government. Joan Crawford has known Randolph since she was an adolescent and has been secretly in love with him all this time (much like last night's teenybopper who was in love with Melvyn Douglas in "Woman In The Shadows").
My generation only knew Melvyn from his senior citizen roles, when he was in his eighties, but when he was young he was quite handsome and suave, in a slightly evil way. Here, he is a States' Rights champion, meaning he is a Virginian first and an American second, as he himself declares. This would make him an far right Republican nowdays, but in the movie he is a nobler figure. In the matter of romance he rebuffs Crawford's advances, for the same reason Ralph Bellamy rebuffed the kid in last night's flick : because he thinks she is too young. Peggy is young, but she is an adult by this time, and when John Randolph won't have her, she gives in to the eager attentions of an equally young Robert Taylor, so handsome that he looks pretty. Taylor - who is top billed but isn't the actual lead - plays a Navy man just arrived in port. He is full of vim and vigor and sweeps Crawford off her feet upon their first meeting. By the end of the first act they are married, and she has pretended to have forgotten all about John Randolph, though in truth she can barely contain herself.
Shortly after this, about halfway through the film, we are settling into a new context : the candidacy of Andrew Jackson for President. The year is 1828. Peggy O'Neil knows Jackson through her father and refers to him as Uncle Andy. Jackson is portrayed by the venerable Lionel Barrymore as a cantankerous but deeply patriotic old coot. He is dignified yet rough hewn, articulate yet versed in Southern slang. He is also shown, briefly, to have racist tendencies, but overall he is depicted as a great American statesman. There are many opinions of the real life Andrew Jackson, one of the most controversial Presidents in our history, but for the purpose of our review we will stick with Barrymore's rendering of him as a flawed but upright leader who in the end did the right thing by upholding Federalism in an attempt to avert the Civil War.
The movie is not about that at all, however. In Hollywood tradition, it's a love story about the life of Peggy O'Neil, with an adjoining theme about the life-bonding love between President Jackson and his wife Rachel, who was scorned and persecuted by the ladies of the Washington social circle, because she was a small town Tennessee woman who smoked a pipe. When Jackson became President, he circled the wagons around his wife to protect her from ridicule. She died before the end of his term, and after she was gone he adopted Peggy O'Neil, his favorite "niece" as an unofficial adviser.
It is after this point in the film, slightly over halfway through, that the dramatic tension of the story kicks in. It centers on both Jackson's tumultuous presidency and the public's non-acceptance of Peggy, living in the White House as his aide. If you Google her picture (a painted portrait), you will see she was quite beautiful.
As the struggle between states' rights and the authority of the Federal Union becomes heated, President Jackson knows he must rid himself of Peggy's presence, which has become an added complaint of his opponents, so he sends her off to Europe with Franchot Tone, his secretary of war.
This results in a marriage of convenience between Tone and Peggy, and nowdays she is known historically as Peggy Eaton, the wife of John Eaton who was Andrew Jackson's Secretary of War. In truth however, her heart always belonged to Senator John Randolph, and as she will find out, he has secretly loved her the entire time, as well.
The final act will show what becomes of their love, and also of Jackson's presidency. Will he be able to hold the Union together? Do we know our American history? What if Donald Trump had been president in 1828?
Oh Lord, that S.O.B has me digressing.......
But forget him and let's return our attention to the movie. It's a little strange to see Joan Crawford, who always played the most modern of women, in a period piece. She was a good actress, though, and acquits herself quite well as Peggy O'Neil. MGM apparently spared no expense in assembling an all-star male cast to support her - Melvyn Douglas! Robert Taylor! Lionel Barrymore! Franchot Tone! Sidney Toler! and......did I mention a young Jimmy Stewart (pronounced Jimmay Schtooart) in a minor role as Peggy's a local boy with a lifelong crush on Peggy? Yeah, he's in it too.
I mean, how's that for a cast? The actors all work well together and the drama is maintained, but there's something missing, maybe a feeling of spontaneity. At times, the scenes feel over rehearsed, a little stilted, as though the actors are too aware they are making a historical film and want to get the dialogue and mannerisms of the time exactly right. Overall, though, I thought it was a very good film about a subject - Peggy O'Neil - I had never heard of. I didn't know much about Andrew Jackson either. It's quite a story, with a beautiful romance, and everything looks great. The movie was nominated for three Academy Awards, one for cinematography, and another for Beulah Bondi's supporting role as Rachel, the pipe smoking wife of the president. Bondi was a legendary character actress, and oh, did I mention the amazing cast in this film? :)
Two Very Big Thumbs Up, then, for "The Gorgeous Hussy". It's another recommendation for fans of costume dramas, and this time you get some American history thrown in for good measure. /////
Well, here I am and it's Friday afternoon now. I have a few minutes to read my book "The Rendlesham Enigma" (almost 700 pages long!) and then I shall head out to the produce market before returning to Pearl's for my evening shift. I hope you are enjoying your Friday, and I will see you tonight, with megatons of love sent your way in the meantime!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, September 26, 2019
"Woman In The Shadows" starring Ralph Bellamy, Melvyn Douglas and Fay Wray
(this blog was begun the night of September 25, 2019)
Tonight, as predicted, I watched another film from Alpha Video : "Woman In The Shadows" (1934), which was originally released to theaters as "Woman In The Dark". It was produced by Biograph Studios in New York, so it isn't technically from Poverty Row, but Biograph was a close enough equivalent that we can think of it as such.
Ralph Bellamy stars as a convict who, as the movie opens, is awaiting his release from prison. Upon getting out, he takes ownership of a cabin - formerly belonging to his father - in upstate New York, near the small town of Denton. He intends to go straight and toe the line, having been admonished by the prison warden to watch his temper in the outside world, for it was that which landed him in prison in the first place - he got in a fight over a woman and his opponent died after a hard punch. Bellamy was convicted of manslaughter and spent three years behind bars but is now determined to put the past behind him. It won't be easy, however.
There is a girl in town who was sweet on Bellamy before he was incarcerated. She is the Sheriff's daughter. Bellamy only thought of her as a kid, but in the three years that have passed she has become an adult, and she shows up at his cabin with renewed romantic interest. He humors her infatuation because she's a "nice kid" (as he still thinks of her), but he won't let things go any further because he is well aware that her Dad is the Sheriff, and is also an S.O.B. at that, who would love nothing more than to put Bellamy back in prison for even the slightest violation of his parole. Though there would be no law broken by a romance, he wisely chooses not to mess with the Sheriff's daughter.
Not too shabby so far, right? And that's just the first five minutes.
Just as Bellamy has fended off the advances of the daughter, there comes a knock on the door. It is Fay Wray, wearing a silky dress not unlike the one she wore in King Kong. We have already witnessed her trek towards Ralph Bellamy's house, through inserted edits that show her crossing a field in a windstorm. She is obviously in distress and nursing a sore ankle, on the run from something. Soon we find out what it is. There is another knock at the door, and this time is it Melvyn Douglas who enters. I must jump in here to mention that, when you have a young Melvyn Douglas and a young Ralph Bellamy in the same picture, you know you are in Early Hollywood, as both actors became even more famous in my time for their roles as elderly gentlemen.
But back to the knock on the door. Melvyn Douglas enters, and in those days, from the few movies I have seen, he always played a suave bad guy pretending to be a good guy. This is what he does here. He is Fay Wray's suitor, her wealthy benefactor who buys her jewelry and wants to own her. She started out as a singer; Douglas got a grip on her by backing one of her Broadway shows, but his only intention was to possess her. It took Fay a long time to realize this, and by the time she did, and found out what Douglas was really like, she had to run for her life. Now she is hiding at Ralph Bellamy's cabin as Douglas, having tracked her, arrives at the door.
Meanwhile, the Sheriff's daughter has been in the cabin the whole time, so Bellamy not only has her Dad to worry about - now he is in the middle of an additional situation between a mobster (Douglas) and his moll. Holy smokes!
Not bad at all for an ultra low budget flick, I'd say.
The script is based on a book by famed mystery writer Dashiell Hammett, so the plot is well developed, and - considering the film's low budget and meager production values (static camerawork, lack of outdoor locations, etc.) - it actually plays closer to the quality of a standard "B" level Film Noir than it does a Poverty Row cheapie.
I give "Woman In The Shadows" Two Standard Thumbs Up, once again taking into consideration that is was made quickly at an independent, low budget studio. But it's even more watchable than last night's "Federal Fugitives", and therefore falls into the category of Halfway Decent. ///
Okay, I'm back and it is once again the following afternoon. Trump is toast, and the only way the Democrats can blow it now is if they go on their two week recess and take the pedal off the metal. We all know what happened with the Mueller Report, and we also know how hard it has been to make anything stick on the arch-criminal Trump, but this time it can be done if the Dems have the will to see it through.
That's all for now. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight, as predicted, I watched another film from Alpha Video : "Woman In The Shadows" (1934), which was originally released to theaters as "Woman In The Dark". It was produced by Biograph Studios in New York, so it isn't technically from Poverty Row, but Biograph was a close enough equivalent that we can think of it as such.
Ralph Bellamy stars as a convict who, as the movie opens, is awaiting his release from prison. Upon getting out, he takes ownership of a cabin - formerly belonging to his father - in upstate New York, near the small town of Denton. He intends to go straight and toe the line, having been admonished by the prison warden to watch his temper in the outside world, for it was that which landed him in prison in the first place - he got in a fight over a woman and his opponent died after a hard punch. Bellamy was convicted of manslaughter and spent three years behind bars but is now determined to put the past behind him. It won't be easy, however.
There is a girl in town who was sweet on Bellamy before he was incarcerated. She is the Sheriff's daughter. Bellamy only thought of her as a kid, but in the three years that have passed she has become an adult, and she shows up at his cabin with renewed romantic interest. He humors her infatuation because she's a "nice kid" (as he still thinks of her), but he won't let things go any further because he is well aware that her Dad is the Sheriff, and is also an S.O.B. at that, who would love nothing more than to put Bellamy back in prison for even the slightest violation of his parole. Though there would be no law broken by a romance, he wisely chooses not to mess with the Sheriff's daughter.
Not too shabby so far, right? And that's just the first five minutes.
Just as Bellamy has fended off the advances of the daughter, there comes a knock on the door. It is Fay Wray, wearing a silky dress not unlike the one she wore in King Kong. We have already witnessed her trek towards Ralph Bellamy's house, through inserted edits that show her crossing a field in a windstorm. She is obviously in distress and nursing a sore ankle, on the run from something. Soon we find out what it is. There is another knock at the door, and this time is it Melvyn Douglas who enters. I must jump in here to mention that, when you have a young Melvyn Douglas and a young Ralph Bellamy in the same picture, you know you are in Early Hollywood, as both actors became even more famous in my time for their roles as elderly gentlemen.
But back to the knock on the door. Melvyn Douglas enters, and in those days, from the few movies I have seen, he always played a suave bad guy pretending to be a good guy. This is what he does here. He is Fay Wray's suitor, her wealthy benefactor who buys her jewelry and wants to own her. She started out as a singer; Douglas got a grip on her by backing one of her Broadway shows, but his only intention was to possess her. It took Fay a long time to realize this, and by the time she did, and found out what Douglas was really like, she had to run for her life. Now she is hiding at Ralph Bellamy's cabin as Douglas, having tracked her, arrives at the door.
Meanwhile, the Sheriff's daughter has been in the cabin the whole time, so Bellamy not only has her Dad to worry about - now he is in the middle of an additional situation between a mobster (Douglas) and his moll. Holy smokes!
Not bad at all for an ultra low budget flick, I'd say.
The script is based on a book by famed mystery writer Dashiell Hammett, so the plot is well developed, and - considering the film's low budget and meager production values (static camerawork, lack of outdoor locations, etc.) - it actually plays closer to the quality of a standard "B" level Film Noir than it does a Poverty Row cheapie.
I give "Woman In The Shadows" Two Standard Thumbs Up, once again taking into consideration that is was made quickly at an independent, low budget studio. But it's even more watchable than last night's "Federal Fugitives", and therefore falls into the category of Halfway Decent. ///
Okay, I'm back and it is once again the following afternoon. Trump is toast, and the only way the Democrats can blow it now is if they go on their two week recess and take the pedal off the metal. We all know what happened with the Mueller Report, and we also know how hard it has been to make anything stick on the arch-criminal Trump, but this time it can be done if the Dems have the will to see it through.
That's all for now. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
"Federal Fugitives" starring Neil Hamilton and Doris Day
(this blog was begun on the night of September 24, 2019)
This afternoon I went over to West Valley Libe in search of movies. I have a bunch of online holds pending from my database searches, but they've been slow in arriving, so I needed something to watch and all I could find at West Val was a few more Alpha Video releases of Poverty Row flicks. I hope that's alright, haha. If you recall, we discussed Alpha as being "the antithesis of Criterion" as far as their dvd presentations are concerned. Alpha's movies are okay in a pinch, for ancient flicks you are almost guaranteed never to have seen, but the picture and sound quality - and often the movies themselves - leave a lot to be desired. We have also recently talked about the studios of the so-called "Poverty Row" that operated in the 30s and 40s in Hollywood. They made ultra low budget films to fill out double bills in theaters. To call them B-Movies would be generous, as the "B"s of the major studios were usually well made from a technical standpoint and fairly well budgeted in comparison.
And yet you can still find some watchable and even "slightly more than decent" releases from Alpha if you give them enough chances. The movie I watched tonight, "Federal Fugitives" (1940) starring Neil Hamilton ("Commissioner Gordon" of "Batman" television fame) and an actress named Doris Day who is not the one you are thinking of, falls into the "watchable" category.
To give you the basics, Neil Hamilton is a Federal Agent who - while dining at a restaurant - recognizes a fugitive (Victor Varconi) who had been thought to have died in a plane crash. Varconi was a good actor who we have seen before in Cecil B. DeMille's "King Of Kings", playing Pontius Pilate. He is good here, too, as a criminal mastermind who has faked his death only to resurface under an assumed identity. Now he is an investor wanting to buy into an innovative American aircraft company that is manufacturing a top secret plane. From the dialogue we can assume he is a German spy, but again - this is a very cheaply made film and that economy extends to the script. Varconi's origins aren't well explained. Amazingly, the writing overall isn't crummy and it does move the story forward, but you really have to pay attention if you want specific details about the characters and their motivations. Mostly, you just glean these things by osmosis, as the plot moves forward and the inevitable conflicts arise.
I was tired today, as Tuesdays are a "wake up early" day here at Pearl's, in order to accommodate the housekeeper, and you guys know I don't get to sleep until very late at night, so during the movie I found myself nodding off here and there, just for five or ten seconds at a time, but it was okay because of the format of the drama. It's Poverty Row, so only a few sets are used, and almost no outdoor locations. Scenes are pared down to an absolute minimum of movement, and everything is explained through the dialogue, so even if you miss a few seconds here and there, the actors bring you up to speed in the next scene with what they are saying. The dialogue tells you the story and keeps you current.
There really isn't much more to tell about the plot; this being a formulaic and quickly made film, you know how things are gonna turn out. There is a surprise involving Varconi's henchmen that is fairly inventive, and the Doris Day we have on hand is just as pretty in a brunette way as her more famous namesake, though it should be noted that this Doris Day was actually the first one! :)
She's a real cutie and is reason enough to watch "Federal Fugitives". I have seen Neil Hamilton is several early film roles now and I guess he was a bigger star than I thought, but to folks my age he will always be "Commissioner Gordon", summoning Batman to solve another crime in Gotham City. He had an elegant charm about him and was always good, no matter the role.
"Federal Fugitives" runs a compact 59 minutes (IMDB says 66, so some footage must've been lost), and I give it Two Thumbs Up, with the addendum that it must be enjoyed for what it is, a picture from Poverty Row. ////
Now it is the afternoon of Wednesday September 25, 2019. I was just watching the news over at Pearl's, and I've gotta say : I don't think Trump's presidency is gonna survive this one. He is toast, especially after we hear from the whistleblower. What do you think? Will this impeachment effort fall flat, or worse, will it even backfire on the Democrats as did the Mueller Report? Or will Trump be impeached and thrown out of office? I am gonna bet on the latter. I think that even the die-hard Republicans won't be able to back him after all the evidence comes out.....but we will see.
Well, I have just enough time to read a few pages of The Rendlesham Enigma and then head over to the produce market for avocados and broccoli and whatever else you think we need. Tonight we will probably have another Poverty Row picture on tap, but it looks pretty good, and soon some of my library holds of more prominent films will be arriving, so don't worry. :)
Keep you eyes on the prize (removal from office of Trump), and I'll see you back here tonight.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
This afternoon I went over to West Valley Libe in search of movies. I have a bunch of online holds pending from my database searches, but they've been slow in arriving, so I needed something to watch and all I could find at West Val was a few more Alpha Video releases of Poverty Row flicks. I hope that's alright, haha. If you recall, we discussed Alpha as being "the antithesis of Criterion" as far as their dvd presentations are concerned. Alpha's movies are okay in a pinch, for ancient flicks you are almost guaranteed never to have seen, but the picture and sound quality - and often the movies themselves - leave a lot to be desired. We have also recently talked about the studios of the so-called "Poverty Row" that operated in the 30s and 40s in Hollywood. They made ultra low budget films to fill out double bills in theaters. To call them B-Movies would be generous, as the "B"s of the major studios were usually well made from a technical standpoint and fairly well budgeted in comparison.
And yet you can still find some watchable and even "slightly more than decent" releases from Alpha if you give them enough chances. The movie I watched tonight, "Federal Fugitives" (1940) starring Neil Hamilton ("Commissioner Gordon" of "Batman" television fame) and an actress named Doris Day who is not the one you are thinking of, falls into the "watchable" category.
To give you the basics, Neil Hamilton is a Federal Agent who - while dining at a restaurant - recognizes a fugitive (Victor Varconi) who had been thought to have died in a plane crash. Varconi was a good actor who we have seen before in Cecil B. DeMille's "King Of Kings", playing Pontius Pilate. He is good here, too, as a criminal mastermind who has faked his death only to resurface under an assumed identity. Now he is an investor wanting to buy into an innovative American aircraft company that is manufacturing a top secret plane. From the dialogue we can assume he is a German spy, but again - this is a very cheaply made film and that economy extends to the script. Varconi's origins aren't well explained. Amazingly, the writing overall isn't crummy and it does move the story forward, but you really have to pay attention if you want specific details about the characters and their motivations. Mostly, you just glean these things by osmosis, as the plot moves forward and the inevitable conflicts arise.
I was tired today, as Tuesdays are a "wake up early" day here at Pearl's, in order to accommodate the housekeeper, and you guys know I don't get to sleep until very late at night, so during the movie I found myself nodding off here and there, just for five or ten seconds at a time, but it was okay because of the format of the drama. It's Poverty Row, so only a few sets are used, and almost no outdoor locations. Scenes are pared down to an absolute minimum of movement, and everything is explained through the dialogue, so even if you miss a few seconds here and there, the actors bring you up to speed in the next scene with what they are saying. The dialogue tells you the story and keeps you current.
There really isn't much more to tell about the plot; this being a formulaic and quickly made film, you know how things are gonna turn out. There is a surprise involving Varconi's henchmen that is fairly inventive, and the Doris Day we have on hand is just as pretty in a brunette way as her more famous namesake, though it should be noted that this Doris Day was actually the first one! :)
She's a real cutie and is reason enough to watch "Federal Fugitives". I have seen Neil Hamilton is several early film roles now and I guess he was a bigger star than I thought, but to folks my age he will always be "Commissioner Gordon", summoning Batman to solve another crime in Gotham City. He had an elegant charm about him and was always good, no matter the role.
"Federal Fugitives" runs a compact 59 minutes (IMDB says 66, so some footage must've been lost), and I give it Two Thumbs Up, with the addendum that it must be enjoyed for what it is, a picture from Poverty Row. ////
Now it is the afternoon of Wednesday September 25, 2019. I was just watching the news over at Pearl's, and I've gotta say : I don't think Trump's presidency is gonna survive this one. He is toast, especially after we hear from the whistleblower. What do you think? Will this impeachment effort fall flat, or worse, will it even backfire on the Democrats as did the Mueller Report? Or will Trump be impeached and thrown out of office? I am gonna bet on the latter. I think that even the die-hard Republicans won't be able to back him after all the evidence comes out.....but we will see.
Well, I have just enough time to read a few pages of The Rendlesham Enigma and then head over to the produce market for avocados and broccoli and whatever else you think we need. Tonight we will probably have another Poverty Row picture on tap, but it looks pretty good, and soon some of my library holds of more prominent films will be arriving, so don't worry. :)
Keep you eyes on the prize (removal from office of Trump), and I'll see you back here tonight.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" starring Bette Davis and Errol Flynn
(this blog was begun on the night of September 23, 2019)
Tonight's movie was called "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" (1939), starring Bette Davis and Errol Flynn in the title roles, as Queen Elizabeth 1 of England and Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. I had been meaning to watch this film for quite some time, having seen parts of it over the years on TCM here at Pearl's. We have that channel running almost 24/7, but the problem for me is that I can never catch a full movie because of my job duties, so I see a lot of "minutes" of films instead of the whole thing, but the good part is that I make a mental note of many of the titles to look up later on in the library database, for watching on dvd during my time off. I first noticed "Elizabeth and Essex" a few years ago - as it is a very eye catching movie - and I did a Libe search at that time, but unbelievably they didn't have it in their holdings, which normally rival and even outdo Netflix. Every time it was on TCM, I would be reminded to check the Libe again, but they never acquired the dvd.
Finally I just said "the hell with it" and bought the movie from Amazon. As a side note, when I say that I bought it, I always mean a dvd hard copy. I am not a fan of streaming anything, shows or movies or music. I don't wanna watch or listen to anything on a computer or have anything stored in a file, except when there is no alternative. In fact, I have so many dvds that in addition to "booking" myself out of my Tiny Apartment, I am also "cd-ing" and "dvd-ing" myself out, too. Soon, my books, movies and music will have pushed me out the door and will live in the unit by themselves along with my drawings and guitars.
But yeah, I did end up purchasing the "Elizabeth and Essex" dvd, because from what I had already seen it looked amazing, and just as importantly it starred Errol Flynn, one of my favorite actors, and Bette Davis, one of the greatest actresses of all time in a major role for her.
Also, I love Technicolor costume dramas from the Middle Ages such as "Robin Hood" (also starring Flynn) and "Knights of the Round Table" and "Ivanhoe", both of which star Robert Taylor, another favorite actor of mine. "Elizabeth and Essex", however, may be the "Costumey-est" Costume Drama of them all, with Bette Davis sporting a shaved forehead to resemble the Queen's receding hairline, also covered under a thick layer of pancake makeup, and finally dressed to the nines in regal gowns of deep greens reds and blues, complete with the Elizabethan Collar named after her. She looks like a character of her own making : majestic, resplendent and tragic all in one go. In addition to the costumes, this is also one of the greatest uses of Technicolor I have ever seen. That is why the movie caught my eye so many times on TCM. Even though I was going about my work and only glancing at the screen, you can't "not see" this movie, so striking are the sets, costumes and color.
The story, as it turns out, is taken from a play that was a big hit on Broadway. The year is 1596. The Earl of Essex, who is also a General, has just returned from crushing the Spanish army at Cadiz. Queen Elizabeth is fond of Essex, perhaps even in love with him (which we know through expository dialogue), so he is expecting a hero's welcome when he enters her court. Instead, she gives him a thorough dressing down in front of his junior officers, a total humiliation for Essex. He has won a huge military victory for the Queen, but her advisers have cautioned against praising him, as his popularity already rivals hers in England, and she has always felt herself on tenuous ground as a female Head Of State. Therefore, her denunciation of Essex - which is puzzling to him at first, then maddening - is strategic. She is being disingenuous, but is doing so to protect her throne, for she knows Essex is ambitious, and to swell his head further with praise might just get him thinking about challenging her sovereignty.
Here you have the setting for all of the conflicts that play out from this starting point. After demoting Essex and replacing him as General with his rival Sir Walter Raleigh (Vincent Price), the Queen feels remorse and calls Essex back to her castle, The Palace of Whitehall. From here, the movie becomes a push-and-pull love story. At times, Queen Elizabeth allows her vulnerability to show, so desirous is she for Essex to love her. By declaring her own love for the Earl, she is hoping he will return the sentiment, and he does - repeatedly - but because of her age (she is decades older than him) she is too insecure to believe his declarations. He seems sincere, but she just can't believe him, or she cannot hold on to that belief. She alternates between total abandon to his heart and more cruel political calculation, pulling herself back from the brink of commitment to persecute him once more.
She is abetted in her campaign against Essex by one of her courtiers, a snake in the grass named Sir Robert Cecil. He is an Iago, always telling her exactly what he thinks she wants to hear while at the same time planting seeds of distrust in her mind about Essex's intentions. At one point, he enlists Lady Penelope Gray (a young and very beautiful Olivia de Havilland) in a scheme to withhold the Earl's love letters to the Queen, who then assumes that Essex is in love with Lady Penelope and is thus ignoring her.
Finally, Essex winds up in the dreaded Tower Of London, and that will be all I can tell you about this fantastic movie, at least as far as the story is concerned.
I can say, though, that Bette Davis gives an incredible performance as the Queen. She is very "Bette Davis" as always - bitchy and demanding - but she uses her amazing technique to add deep vulnerability into the mix, and you can't stop watching her during her emotional eruptions, as every nuance of feeling crosses her heavily made-up face. Davis' use of her eyes and facial muscles is really impressive, but it doesn't come across as mechanical. She really is one of the greatest actresses of all time, and in some ways maybe the most talented ever.
Errol Flynn, while not in her league, was still good enough to hold his own with many top actresses of his era, and he does so here with Davis. Flynn was more Movie Star than great thespian, but he was very good at what he did, and in my opinion never turned in anything but an excellent performance. He was a total pro in all his roles.
As already mentioned, this is one great looking movie. The Technicolor is off the charts and the cinematography by the great Sol Polito is sumptuous.
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" was nominated for five Academy Awards (though unthinkably not for Bette Davis!), and it gets Two Huge Thumbs Up from me. Don't miss it, especially if you love costume dramas, films about the Middle Ages, or English historical movies. ////
Well, as you can see I am finishing up this review the next day, on Tuesday Afternoon. Cue the Moody Blues! I will keep doing my goshdarndest to finish the blogs on the night I start them, but at the very least they will always be completed by the following afternoon. Now I've gotta go to the store and then to the Libe to look for more movies. See you tonight!
Tons of love as always. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight's movie was called "The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" (1939), starring Bette Davis and Errol Flynn in the title roles, as Queen Elizabeth 1 of England and Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. I had been meaning to watch this film for quite some time, having seen parts of it over the years on TCM here at Pearl's. We have that channel running almost 24/7, but the problem for me is that I can never catch a full movie because of my job duties, so I see a lot of "minutes" of films instead of the whole thing, but the good part is that I make a mental note of many of the titles to look up later on in the library database, for watching on dvd during my time off. I first noticed "Elizabeth and Essex" a few years ago - as it is a very eye catching movie - and I did a Libe search at that time, but unbelievably they didn't have it in their holdings, which normally rival and even outdo Netflix. Every time it was on TCM, I would be reminded to check the Libe again, but they never acquired the dvd.
Finally I just said "the hell with it" and bought the movie from Amazon. As a side note, when I say that I bought it, I always mean a dvd hard copy. I am not a fan of streaming anything, shows or movies or music. I don't wanna watch or listen to anything on a computer or have anything stored in a file, except when there is no alternative. In fact, I have so many dvds that in addition to "booking" myself out of my Tiny Apartment, I am also "cd-ing" and "dvd-ing" myself out, too. Soon, my books, movies and music will have pushed me out the door and will live in the unit by themselves along with my drawings and guitars.
But yeah, I did end up purchasing the "Elizabeth and Essex" dvd, because from what I had already seen it looked amazing, and just as importantly it starred Errol Flynn, one of my favorite actors, and Bette Davis, one of the greatest actresses of all time in a major role for her.
Also, I love Technicolor costume dramas from the Middle Ages such as "Robin Hood" (also starring Flynn) and "Knights of the Round Table" and "Ivanhoe", both of which star Robert Taylor, another favorite actor of mine. "Elizabeth and Essex", however, may be the "Costumey-est" Costume Drama of them all, with Bette Davis sporting a shaved forehead to resemble the Queen's receding hairline, also covered under a thick layer of pancake makeup, and finally dressed to the nines in regal gowns of deep greens reds and blues, complete with the Elizabethan Collar named after her. She looks like a character of her own making : majestic, resplendent and tragic all in one go. In addition to the costumes, this is also one of the greatest uses of Technicolor I have ever seen. That is why the movie caught my eye so many times on TCM. Even though I was going about my work and only glancing at the screen, you can't "not see" this movie, so striking are the sets, costumes and color.
The story, as it turns out, is taken from a play that was a big hit on Broadway. The year is 1596. The Earl of Essex, who is also a General, has just returned from crushing the Spanish army at Cadiz. Queen Elizabeth is fond of Essex, perhaps even in love with him (which we know through expository dialogue), so he is expecting a hero's welcome when he enters her court. Instead, she gives him a thorough dressing down in front of his junior officers, a total humiliation for Essex. He has won a huge military victory for the Queen, but her advisers have cautioned against praising him, as his popularity already rivals hers in England, and she has always felt herself on tenuous ground as a female Head Of State. Therefore, her denunciation of Essex - which is puzzling to him at first, then maddening - is strategic. She is being disingenuous, but is doing so to protect her throne, for she knows Essex is ambitious, and to swell his head further with praise might just get him thinking about challenging her sovereignty.
Here you have the setting for all of the conflicts that play out from this starting point. After demoting Essex and replacing him as General with his rival Sir Walter Raleigh (Vincent Price), the Queen feels remorse and calls Essex back to her castle, The Palace of Whitehall. From here, the movie becomes a push-and-pull love story. At times, Queen Elizabeth allows her vulnerability to show, so desirous is she for Essex to love her. By declaring her own love for the Earl, she is hoping he will return the sentiment, and he does - repeatedly - but because of her age (she is decades older than him) she is too insecure to believe his declarations. He seems sincere, but she just can't believe him, or she cannot hold on to that belief. She alternates between total abandon to his heart and more cruel political calculation, pulling herself back from the brink of commitment to persecute him once more.
She is abetted in her campaign against Essex by one of her courtiers, a snake in the grass named Sir Robert Cecil. He is an Iago, always telling her exactly what he thinks she wants to hear while at the same time planting seeds of distrust in her mind about Essex's intentions. At one point, he enlists Lady Penelope Gray (a young and very beautiful Olivia de Havilland) in a scheme to withhold the Earl's love letters to the Queen, who then assumes that Essex is in love with Lady Penelope and is thus ignoring her.
Finally, Essex winds up in the dreaded Tower Of London, and that will be all I can tell you about this fantastic movie, at least as far as the story is concerned.
I can say, though, that Bette Davis gives an incredible performance as the Queen. She is very "Bette Davis" as always - bitchy and demanding - but she uses her amazing technique to add deep vulnerability into the mix, and you can't stop watching her during her emotional eruptions, as every nuance of feeling crosses her heavily made-up face. Davis' use of her eyes and facial muscles is really impressive, but it doesn't come across as mechanical. She really is one of the greatest actresses of all time, and in some ways maybe the most talented ever.
Errol Flynn, while not in her league, was still good enough to hold his own with many top actresses of his era, and he does so here with Davis. Flynn was more Movie Star than great thespian, but he was very good at what he did, and in my opinion never turned in anything but an excellent performance. He was a total pro in all his roles.
As already mentioned, this is one great looking movie. The Technicolor is off the charts and the cinematography by the great Sol Polito is sumptuous.
"The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex" was nominated for five Academy Awards (though unthinkably not for Bette Davis!), and it gets Two Huge Thumbs Up from me. Don't miss it, especially if you love costume dramas, films about the Middle Ages, or English historical movies. ////
Well, as you can see I am finishing up this review the next day, on Tuesday Afternoon. Cue the Moody Blues! I will keep doing my goshdarndest to finish the blogs on the night I start them, but at the very least they will always be completed by the following afternoon. Now I've gotta go to the store and then to the Libe to look for more movies. See you tonight!
Tons of love as always. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, September 23, 2019
"Reseda Rising" + "You Were Never Really Here" starring Joaquin Phoenix : really bad, please don't watch
Sorry I missed ya last night, but I didn't have a movie to review because I went down to the third annual "Reseda Rising" art & music walk on Sherman Way. Grimsley met me there and we strolled around for a couple hours, checking out the various booths that featured all kinds of works from different artists. There was a lot of Goth art on display, and a booth with local 'Zines for sale. Reseda has a punk history dating back to the 1980s, when a store called BeBop Records (located next to the Reseda Theater) hosted local bands and spoken word artists. Many of the founders and sponsors of the "Reseda Rising" movement are Mexican-American locals who want to bring back the artist culture that thrived here during that time. Reseda has always been somewhat Bohemian, and tonight they even had a drag queen dance exhibition followed by a chance for folks to get their pictures taken with the dancers. The LGBT community is well represented in both Northridge and Reseda. In Northridge the promotion of acceptance would come mostly from CSUN, but ironically I don't think a drag queen performance would go down as well in the 'Ridge, maybe because it is slightly more affluent - and thus a little more conservative culturally (though not politically) than is Reseda, which is a little more "street". As you know, I am a Dual Citizen of both Reseda and Northridge, being born in the former and having lived most of my life in the latter, and I love both towns and appreciate their differences.
Anyway, Grim and I had fun at the artwalk.
We ended up spending most of the evening watching a local band playing off to the side against a stucco building wall. They were called "Wild Ride" and consisted of a male/female guitarist/drummer duo, like the White Stripes format. They played all kinds of covers, from Jimi to Pink Floyd to Motorhead, and were very good. /////
Tonight (Sunday) I did have a movie : "You Were Never Really Here" (2018) starring Joaquin Phoenix. Lemme see what I can tell ya about this particular flick.
Um, as you know, I don't watch too many current movies. It's not because I'm a snob, or because I'm entirely hooked on the TCM era (though that is part of it), or because of the "get off my lawn" factor. I'm not a curmudgeon to new stuff, and in fact I have always kept up with the changes in popular culture. I can even whistle the tune to that song by Fun that was a big hit several godforsaken years ago (and as an aside, don't get Grimsley started on Fun).
But getting back to the movies, the reason I don't go to many of the new ones, or seek them out on dvd, is because most of them suck. Plain and simple, sorry about that if you are a fan. But the thing is that I've been a fan of movies for my entire life. I've watched probably close to 5000 of them, including all kinds from all eras, and - again, sorry and don't mean to offend - but for me, this is the worst era for new movies that I can remember. I will exclude the Marvel Comics blockbusters from consideration because I am not a young person, and I am sure those films are well done and make a lot of young viewers happy. But as for all the other releases out there.........(er, I don't wanna offend)......but man they are bad, and I include the recent Oscar contenders in there. I only go to the theater these days for "It : Chapter Two" or "Dunkirk" or something equally mega that I know for certain is gonna be spectacular. I'm not even gonna go to "Ad Astra", even though the title sounds like I could be in it, because I just don't think Brad Pitt is a very good actor. Sorry. And you know me - I love Space Movies. But I just can't deal with crummy new films any more, and I don't care how highly touted they are.
All of which brings me back to "You Were Never Really Here". I mean, man....I wish that title was true, regarding myself and the movie. I'll try to be brief in my criticisms. It wasn't a horrible picture, but it was very morbid, dark and violent. "But Ad", I hear you say, "you're the guy who considers Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be one of the greatest films ever made". And you are correct in saying that. But "Chainsaw" had substance. It had wit, and style. It had tension and comic relief (well, maybe not so much of that), but it had script and storyline in spades. And it had filmmaking technique beyond just putting pretty pictures up on the screen.
The photography in "You Were Never Really Here" (and I am thinking that I do love that title cause it gives me an excuse), is beautiful and very artistic, but it doesn't compliment the movie because there is nothing to compliment. Instead, it stands out as a sideshow : "Well, at least the photography was good".
There is no script to this movie, or to be fair, very little. Joaquin Phoenix is a guy who, for a fee, brings back underage girls from locations where they have been held captive by the Jeffery Epsteins of this world. The subject matter is very unpleasant, but I can understand the filmmaker's desire to tell it in all it's brutal frankness, the director being a woman named Lynne Ramsey. The problem is that she presents it as a horror show, and an entirely unrealistic one at that. Phoenix, whose brooding visage occupies most of the 90 minutes of screentime, walks into the lairs of pedophiles as a hired gun, and he proceeds to beat the pedos to death with ball been hammers he has recently purchased from a hardware store. The only cops that are involved are ones who are in on the pedophilia.
This is a sick movie masquerading as arthouse.
I might as well have watched "The Toolbox Murders", a B-Movie from 1978 starring Cameron Mitchell. Again, to be fair, the director is trying for a hypnotic effect, and she intersperses quick flashbacks of the child abuse Phoenix himself suffered as a kid, and also flashes of the horrors he witnessed as a soldier, but these flashbacks are "blink and you'll miss 'em", and their importance is never explained.
Most of the movie is close ups of Joaquin Phoenix scowling, and this is supposed to pass for great acting. Phoenix is good in the role, no doubt, but the director - who also wrote the non-existent script - gives him nothing to do but scowl.........and hit people in the head with hammers.
I've said enough about this movie, and even though it does have a hypnotic pull, that is entirely offset by the fact that it's really bad, and also brutal and gross, and really there is no reason to watch it, unless you have a revenge motive to watch Jeffery Epstein get what was coming to him.
And in that way, I can understand why Lynne Ramsey made her film, just to let it all out about what these guys deserve, especially from a female point of view.
But please don't watch it, even if you are female and even if you feel that revenge in your heart.
"You Were Never Really Here" is nothing more than a trashy and extremely violent B-Horror movie, dressed up as an art film, and you will gain nothing from it, indeed it will make you ill. /////
That's all I know for tonight. Sorry about the awful movie, but we had good singing in church. And the Rams won, so it was a good day after all. Plus, I am sending you Tons Of Love at this very moment, and I will see you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxxo :):)
Anyway, Grim and I had fun at the artwalk.
We ended up spending most of the evening watching a local band playing off to the side against a stucco building wall. They were called "Wild Ride" and consisted of a male/female guitarist/drummer duo, like the White Stripes format. They played all kinds of covers, from Jimi to Pink Floyd to Motorhead, and were very good. /////
Tonight (Sunday) I did have a movie : "You Were Never Really Here" (2018) starring Joaquin Phoenix. Lemme see what I can tell ya about this particular flick.
Um, as you know, I don't watch too many current movies. It's not because I'm a snob, or because I'm entirely hooked on the TCM era (though that is part of it), or because of the "get off my lawn" factor. I'm not a curmudgeon to new stuff, and in fact I have always kept up with the changes in popular culture. I can even whistle the tune to that song by Fun that was a big hit several godforsaken years ago (and as an aside, don't get Grimsley started on Fun).
But getting back to the movies, the reason I don't go to many of the new ones, or seek them out on dvd, is because most of them suck. Plain and simple, sorry about that if you are a fan. But the thing is that I've been a fan of movies for my entire life. I've watched probably close to 5000 of them, including all kinds from all eras, and - again, sorry and don't mean to offend - but for me, this is the worst era for new movies that I can remember. I will exclude the Marvel Comics blockbusters from consideration because I am not a young person, and I am sure those films are well done and make a lot of young viewers happy. But as for all the other releases out there.........(er, I don't wanna offend)......but man they are bad, and I include the recent Oscar contenders in there. I only go to the theater these days for "It : Chapter Two" or "Dunkirk" or something equally mega that I know for certain is gonna be spectacular. I'm not even gonna go to "Ad Astra", even though the title sounds like I could be in it, because I just don't think Brad Pitt is a very good actor. Sorry. And you know me - I love Space Movies. But I just can't deal with crummy new films any more, and I don't care how highly touted they are.
All of which brings me back to "You Were Never Really Here". I mean, man....I wish that title was true, regarding myself and the movie. I'll try to be brief in my criticisms. It wasn't a horrible picture, but it was very morbid, dark and violent. "But Ad", I hear you say, "you're the guy who considers Texas Chainsaw Massacre to be one of the greatest films ever made". And you are correct in saying that. But "Chainsaw" had substance. It had wit, and style. It had tension and comic relief (well, maybe not so much of that), but it had script and storyline in spades. And it had filmmaking technique beyond just putting pretty pictures up on the screen.
The photography in "You Were Never Really Here" (and I am thinking that I do love that title cause it gives me an excuse), is beautiful and very artistic, but it doesn't compliment the movie because there is nothing to compliment. Instead, it stands out as a sideshow : "Well, at least the photography was good".
There is no script to this movie, or to be fair, very little. Joaquin Phoenix is a guy who, for a fee, brings back underage girls from locations where they have been held captive by the Jeffery Epsteins of this world. The subject matter is very unpleasant, but I can understand the filmmaker's desire to tell it in all it's brutal frankness, the director being a woman named Lynne Ramsey. The problem is that she presents it as a horror show, and an entirely unrealistic one at that. Phoenix, whose brooding visage occupies most of the 90 minutes of screentime, walks into the lairs of pedophiles as a hired gun, and he proceeds to beat the pedos to death with ball been hammers he has recently purchased from a hardware store. The only cops that are involved are ones who are in on the pedophilia.
This is a sick movie masquerading as arthouse.
I might as well have watched "The Toolbox Murders", a B-Movie from 1978 starring Cameron Mitchell. Again, to be fair, the director is trying for a hypnotic effect, and she intersperses quick flashbacks of the child abuse Phoenix himself suffered as a kid, and also flashes of the horrors he witnessed as a soldier, but these flashbacks are "blink and you'll miss 'em", and their importance is never explained.
Most of the movie is close ups of Joaquin Phoenix scowling, and this is supposed to pass for great acting. Phoenix is good in the role, no doubt, but the director - who also wrote the non-existent script - gives him nothing to do but scowl.........and hit people in the head with hammers.
I've said enough about this movie, and even though it does have a hypnotic pull, that is entirely offset by the fact that it's really bad, and also brutal and gross, and really there is no reason to watch it, unless you have a revenge motive to watch Jeffery Epstein get what was coming to him.
And in that way, I can understand why Lynne Ramsey made her film, just to let it all out about what these guys deserve, especially from a female point of view.
But please don't watch it, even if you are female and even if you feel that revenge in your heart.
"You Were Never Really Here" is nothing more than a trashy and extremely violent B-Horror movie, dressed up as an art film, and you will gain nothing from it, indeed it will make you ill. /////
That's all I know for tonight. Sorry about the awful movie, but we had good singing in church. And the Rams won, so it was a good day after all. Plus, I am sending you Tons Of Love at this very moment, and I will see you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxxo :):)
Saturday, September 21, 2019
"Warning Shot" starring David Janssen
(this blog was begun the night of September 20, 2019)
Tonight's movie was called "Warning Shot" (1967), a crime thriller about a police detective (David Janssen) who kills a man during a stakeout. As the movie opens, Janssen and his partner (Keenan Wynn) are keeping watch on an apartment building in the area of West Los Angeles. A serial killer is on the loose, and they think he may live there. As Janssen is hiding in the bushes near the front door, a man approaches from inside the complex. Also in the entryway is a large, fuzzy dog, who will add confusion to what is about to take place. After the man stops to pet the dog, he resumes his exit from the building, but something about his body language alerts David Janssen that he may be their man, the psycho killer they have been looking for.
As the guy exits the building, Janssen makes a snap decision to arrest him. He jumps from his hiding place to announce himself as a police officer, and the man runs back inside the courtyard of the apartment complex. Janssen gives chase, and within seconds he has shot and killed the man, who falls dead into the pool.
We the audience see that, prior to being shot, the man had pulled a gun from his coat pocket and was raising it to shoot at David Janssen at the moment he was blown away. But in the aftermath of the shooting, when the evidence team has arrived, no gun can be found. This is astounding to Janssen (and to us), because he knows what he saw, and he can even describe the model of gun, a .38 caliber pistol.
Because this was an officer involved shooting, Janssen must face a procedural review from the higher-ups at the department, and because no gun was found, on or near the suspect, he is relieved of duty and temporarily suspended. The hard charging D.A., who has a personal reason for hating bad cops, presses charges against Janssen immediately, because it turns out that the dead man was not the serial killer the police were looking for, but instead was a local doctor who was loved and respected in the community.
Sounds like a pretty good start to the plot, eh?
And it was a good start. Before I began watching, I had figured "Warning Shot" to be a TV movie that had 15 minutes of footage added to gain a theatrical release, made perhaps in 1974-75, during the golden era of the teleplay. I checked it out from the Libe a few days ago and I couldn't remember how I'd come to put a hold on it, or what search term I'd used in finding it. I knew it wasn't a David Janssen search. But at any rate, the dvd had arrived at Northridge Libe with a host of other films for which I did know the search origin, and because I didn't recall how I came to order "Warning Shot", or what it was about, I just figured from looking at the cast and the dvd box that it had been a TV movie that was later given a theatrical release, maybe in regional areas or as a "second run" feature. Adding to this conclusion were the many cameo appearances of stars like Joan Collins, Walter Pidgeon, Eleanor Parker and George Sanders, each of whom receive high billing but appear only briefly. This reminded me of the format of a late-70s show like "The Love Boat" or "Fantasy Island", which usually had featured guest stars from the movies of yesteryear in every episode.
To make a short story long, as I just did above, I didn't remember how I came to order "Warning Shot" from the library database, so when I got it, I just thought that it was a TV movie from the mid-1970s, which it was not. It was an actual theatrical release from 1967.
And it got off to a good start, as noted above before I went on my tangent.
(now it is Saturday afternoon September 21, 2019) .....and oh my goodness, here we are again with the return of the abominable two-day blog! "Oh Good Lord, Ad, don't start up with those again". I will try not to, but I can't make any promises. For now, let's remain optimistic and hope this will be the only one. Now let's get back to the movie.
The plot is very suspenseful for about the first 45 minutes, or approximately half the film. David Janssen is going to be prosecuted for shooting the "unarmed" man, and has only himself to rely on to uncover the truth. No one believes him that the man had a gun, so he undertakes his own investigation to try and locate it. His first step is to conduct interviews of other residents in the building to try and get a fuller picture of who the man was - besides just a beloved doctor - and what his interests may have been. This section of the movie is very involving and it looks like we have a top drawer mystery on our hands.
However, things bog down a bit in the second half, with cameo appearances from the about named actors that go on too long and in some cases are stylised or cliched to suit the guest star in question. For instance, Eleanor Parker plays the seductive, alcoholic wife of the late doctor (who knows what he was really like), and she was a good actress, but the scene comes across as specifically a cameo, like "here comes Eleanor Parker as the drunk wife". Do you get what I mean? You do if you know your 1970s television shows. One exception to the stylised cameos is the performance of George Grizzard as a happy-go-lucky airline pilot who lives in the apartment building. You really wonder what is up with his character, and he will keep you guessing as the rest of the plot unfolds. He also has some of the best lines in the movie, including some laugh-out-loud one liners near the end.
Overall, "Warning Shot" is worth a watch. I'm gonna be generous and give it Two Regular Thumbs Up, but had I finished this review last night as intended, I'd have only doled out one and one half thumbs. But yeah, the first half is very good, and even in the second half you get George Grizzard and a young Stephanie Powers to get you through some of the mundanity. I think they were trying to make a movie star out of David Janssen with this one, as he was hot off "The Fugitive", a hit show at the time. Maybe his persona didn't translate to the big screen in the long run, but he is very good here in an understated role.
So there you have it. Give "Warning Shot" a look, even if you can't remember why you ordered it. ////
That's all for now. I'll be back tonight at the Usual Time, and I'll be striving to keep the blogs arriving on deadline. Have an awesome day!
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight's movie was called "Warning Shot" (1967), a crime thriller about a police detective (David Janssen) who kills a man during a stakeout. As the movie opens, Janssen and his partner (Keenan Wynn) are keeping watch on an apartment building in the area of West Los Angeles. A serial killer is on the loose, and they think he may live there. As Janssen is hiding in the bushes near the front door, a man approaches from inside the complex. Also in the entryway is a large, fuzzy dog, who will add confusion to what is about to take place. After the man stops to pet the dog, he resumes his exit from the building, but something about his body language alerts David Janssen that he may be their man, the psycho killer they have been looking for.
As the guy exits the building, Janssen makes a snap decision to arrest him. He jumps from his hiding place to announce himself as a police officer, and the man runs back inside the courtyard of the apartment complex. Janssen gives chase, and within seconds he has shot and killed the man, who falls dead into the pool.
We the audience see that, prior to being shot, the man had pulled a gun from his coat pocket and was raising it to shoot at David Janssen at the moment he was blown away. But in the aftermath of the shooting, when the evidence team has arrived, no gun can be found. This is astounding to Janssen (and to us), because he knows what he saw, and he can even describe the model of gun, a .38 caliber pistol.
Because this was an officer involved shooting, Janssen must face a procedural review from the higher-ups at the department, and because no gun was found, on or near the suspect, he is relieved of duty and temporarily suspended. The hard charging D.A., who has a personal reason for hating bad cops, presses charges against Janssen immediately, because it turns out that the dead man was not the serial killer the police were looking for, but instead was a local doctor who was loved and respected in the community.
Sounds like a pretty good start to the plot, eh?
And it was a good start. Before I began watching, I had figured "Warning Shot" to be a TV movie that had 15 minutes of footage added to gain a theatrical release, made perhaps in 1974-75, during the golden era of the teleplay. I checked it out from the Libe a few days ago and I couldn't remember how I'd come to put a hold on it, or what search term I'd used in finding it. I knew it wasn't a David Janssen search. But at any rate, the dvd had arrived at Northridge Libe with a host of other films for which I did know the search origin, and because I didn't recall how I came to order "Warning Shot", or what it was about, I just figured from looking at the cast and the dvd box that it had been a TV movie that was later given a theatrical release, maybe in regional areas or as a "second run" feature. Adding to this conclusion were the many cameo appearances of stars like Joan Collins, Walter Pidgeon, Eleanor Parker and George Sanders, each of whom receive high billing but appear only briefly. This reminded me of the format of a late-70s show like "The Love Boat" or "Fantasy Island", which usually had featured guest stars from the movies of yesteryear in every episode.
To make a short story long, as I just did above, I didn't remember how I came to order "Warning Shot" from the library database, so when I got it, I just thought that it was a TV movie from the mid-1970s, which it was not. It was an actual theatrical release from 1967.
And it got off to a good start, as noted above before I went on my tangent.
(now it is Saturday afternoon September 21, 2019) .....and oh my goodness, here we are again with the return of the abominable two-day blog! "Oh Good Lord, Ad, don't start up with those again". I will try not to, but I can't make any promises. For now, let's remain optimistic and hope this will be the only one. Now let's get back to the movie.
The plot is very suspenseful for about the first 45 minutes, or approximately half the film. David Janssen is going to be prosecuted for shooting the "unarmed" man, and has only himself to rely on to uncover the truth. No one believes him that the man had a gun, so he undertakes his own investigation to try and locate it. His first step is to conduct interviews of other residents in the building to try and get a fuller picture of who the man was - besides just a beloved doctor - and what his interests may have been. This section of the movie is very involving and it looks like we have a top drawer mystery on our hands.
However, things bog down a bit in the second half, with cameo appearances from the about named actors that go on too long and in some cases are stylised or cliched to suit the guest star in question. For instance, Eleanor Parker plays the seductive, alcoholic wife of the late doctor (who knows what he was really like), and she was a good actress, but the scene comes across as specifically a cameo, like "here comes Eleanor Parker as the drunk wife". Do you get what I mean? You do if you know your 1970s television shows. One exception to the stylised cameos is the performance of George Grizzard as a happy-go-lucky airline pilot who lives in the apartment building. You really wonder what is up with his character, and he will keep you guessing as the rest of the plot unfolds. He also has some of the best lines in the movie, including some laugh-out-loud one liners near the end.
Overall, "Warning Shot" is worth a watch. I'm gonna be generous and give it Two Regular Thumbs Up, but had I finished this review last night as intended, I'd have only doled out one and one half thumbs. But yeah, the first half is very good, and even in the second half you get George Grizzard and a young Stephanie Powers to get you through some of the mundanity. I think they were trying to make a movie star out of David Janssen with this one, as he was hot off "The Fugitive", a hit show at the time. Maybe his persona didn't translate to the big screen in the long run, but he is very good here in an understated role.
So there you have it. Give "Warning Shot" a look, even if you can't remember why you ordered it. ////
That's all for now. I'll be back tonight at the Usual Time, and I'll be striving to keep the blogs arriving on deadline. Have an awesome day!
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, September 20, 2019
"High Tension" starring Brian Donlevy + Paul Tremblay + Trump Is Toast
I'm writing once again from Pearl's, back at work for another cycle. I enjoyed my time off, especially my two Santa Clarita hikes (Placerita & Whitney Canyons), and I had a chance to work on my latest drawing too, in addition to reading a lot and watching a ton of movies, which I do anyway. :)
Tonight I watched a screwball comedy called "High Tension" (1936), starring Brian Donlevy, who we also saw in last night's "Brigham Young". I've only seen Donlevy in serious roles, usually playing macho characters, so I had no idea he was capable of the kind of fast talking repartee required for screwball. The setting was unusual : Donlevy plays a deep-sea cable engineer, responsible for the underwater telephone lines at the bottom of the ocean.
Now, I have to interject here to ask : "who the hell thought that up"? Meaning, who came up with the idea of putting 3000 miles worth of cable at the bottom of the ocean, which averages a depth of 2 1/2 miles, and furthermore, "how the hell did they go about laying it down"?
Well anyway, man - the massive engineering projects that were undertaken in the early 20th century are mindboggling.
But the thing is, whoever heard of a movie where the main character is a deep sea cable engineer? Donlevy is the guy who, whenever there is a break in the cable, has to go down to the ocean floor in a bathysphere to repair it. He then has to climb out of the iron ball wearing a deep sea diving suit, and try to fix the cable without getting crushed by a wall of shifting coral.
The first and only time I previously saw this subject matter presented onscreen was in an episode of "Gilligan's Island", in which a typhoon washes ashore an undersea telephone cable, and the Professor taps into it to call Hawaii so the Castaways can be rescued. But the operator who answers thinks the call is a prank, and hangs up on the Professor. Before seeing it on "Gilligan's Island" when I was about 7, I had no idea there was any such thing as a telephone cable that ran all the way under the ocean so that people could call folks in Europe.
Do they even still need that cable in the age of cell phones?
At any rate, it was a unique context to use as a frame for a romantic comedy, and in the 63 minute running length of the film a fair amount of ground was covered. The plot was not substantial but that wasn't the point. The story is all about Donlevy's diving exploits, and - when he is topside - his attempt to keep his fiance on ice while he woos the beautiful Helen Wood, a secretary in the company office.
"High Tension" is a fast little flick, with dialogue at times so rapid that I had to hit the rewind button. There are two or three over the top humorous punchout scenes, including one in which Donlevy and a romantic rival try to clobber one another with a piano. The best parts are the oceangoing trips to repair the telephone cable, where it looks like director Alan Dwan (an early Hollywood pioneer) went to great lengths to show the real thing or close to it. I give the film Two Regular Thumbs Up, with bonus points for the nimble interplay of dialogue between the cast members. Man, you had to be on your toes to not only talk that fast, but to maintain the timing necessary for the comedy to work.
Check out "High Tension" for an unusual take on the Screwball genre. /////
I am almost finished with Paul Tremblay's "Growing Things", a collection of his short stories. I know I have already raved about it, but tonight I read a story called "Notes From The Dog Walkers", which at 44 pages is the longest tale in the book, and when I finished it, I just had to say out loud (to Tremblay had he been here), "how in the world could you possibly have thought that up"? I was reading and thinking, "is Tremblay nuts"? And of course he isn't, but he may just have the most fertile imagination of any horror writer you have ever read. He goes off on tangents, shall we say....which makes him a man after my own heart, haha, but seriously, he may simply be insane. If you are a fan of great writing, horror or otherwise (but especially horror), I encourage you to check out "Growing Things" by Paul Tremblay, aka "The Trembler" as I have coined him. You can thank me later after reading the book.
This eve, back at Pearl's and watching CNN (which I can't watch at home cause I don't have cable), I heard for the first time about this "whistleblower" news item that has to do with Trump and a call he made to the president of Ukraine. Chris Cuomo did an interview with Rudolph Giuliani, and we already know Rudy is a nutjob, but I am here to tell you that he had his ultimate meltdown tonight during this interview. Check CNN online to see if you can watch it. Cuckoo bird Rudy's lengthy tirade against Cuomo and CNN may indicate that there is finally something tangible against Trump, this man who has tried to destroy America, that will be enough to remove him from office. I know we are skeptical after the failure of the Mueller Report that anything can be done to stop him, but from what I saw on MSNBC later in the evening, it looks like the stuff may just hit the fan this time.
Let's hope this is the real thing this time, and that Trump is not only forced from office but ends up in prison for the rest of his life, where he belongs.
God Bless America, and I wish you a peaceful evening. xoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight I watched a screwball comedy called "High Tension" (1936), starring Brian Donlevy, who we also saw in last night's "Brigham Young". I've only seen Donlevy in serious roles, usually playing macho characters, so I had no idea he was capable of the kind of fast talking repartee required for screwball. The setting was unusual : Donlevy plays a deep-sea cable engineer, responsible for the underwater telephone lines at the bottom of the ocean.
Now, I have to interject here to ask : "who the hell thought that up"? Meaning, who came up with the idea of putting 3000 miles worth of cable at the bottom of the ocean, which averages a depth of 2 1/2 miles, and furthermore, "how the hell did they go about laying it down"?
Well anyway, man - the massive engineering projects that were undertaken in the early 20th century are mindboggling.
But the thing is, whoever heard of a movie where the main character is a deep sea cable engineer? Donlevy is the guy who, whenever there is a break in the cable, has to go down to the ocean floor in a bathysphere to repair it. He then has to climb out of the iron ball wearing a deep sea diving suit, and try to fix the cable without getting crushed by a wall of shifting coral.
The first and only time I previously saw this subject matter presented onscreen was in an episode of "Gilligan's Island", in which a typhoon washes ashore an undersea telephone cable, and the Professor taps into it to call Hawaii so the Castaways can be rescued. But the operator who answers thinks the call is a prank, and hangs up on the Professor. Before seeing it on "Gilligan's Island" when I was about 7, I had no idea there was any such thing as a telephone cable that ran all the way under the ocean so that people could call folks in Europe.
Do they even still need that cable in the age of cell phones?
At any rate, it was a unique context to use as a frame for a romantic comedy, and in the 63 minute running length of the film a fair amount of ground was covered. The plot was not substantial but that wasn't the point. The story is all about Donlevy's diving exploits, and - when he is topside - his attempt to keep his fiance on ice while he woos the beautiful Helen Wood, a secretary in the company office.
"High Tension" is a fast little flick, with dialogue at times so rapid that I had to hit the rewind button. There are two or three over the top humorous punchout scenes, including one in which Donlevy and a romantic rival try to clobber one another with a piano. The best parts are the oceangoing trips to repair the telephone cable, where it looks like director Alan Dwan (an early Hollywood pioneer) went to great lengths to show the real thing or close to it. I give the film Two Regular Thumbs Up, with bonus points for the nimble interplay of dialogue between the cast members. Man, you had to be on your toes to not only talk that fast, but to maintain the timing necessary for the comedy to work.
Check out "High Tension" for an unusual take on the Screwball genre. /////
I am almost finished with Paul Tremblay's "Growing Things", a collection of his short stories. I know I have already raved about it, but tonight I read a story called "Notes From The Dog Walkers", which at 44 pages is the longest tale in the book, and when I finished it, I just had to say out loud (to Tremblay had he been here), "how in the world could you possibly have thought that up"? I was reading and thinking, "is Tremblay nuts"? And of course he isn't, but he may just have the most fertile imagination of any horror writer you have ever read. He goes off on tangents, shall we say....which makes him a man after my own heart, haha, but seriously, he may simply be insane. If you are a fan of great writing, horror or otherwise (but especially horror), I encourage you to check out "Growing Things" by Paul Tremblay, aka "The Trembler" as I have coined him. You can thank me later after reading the book.
This eve, back at Pearl's and watching CNN (which I can't watch at home cause I don't have cable), I heard for the first time about this "whistleblower" news item that has to do with Trump and a call he made to the president of Ukraine. Chris Cuomo did an interview with Rudolph Giuliani, and we already know Rudy is a nutjob, but I am here to tell you that he had his ultimate meltdown tonight during this interview. Check CNN online to see if you can watch it. Cuckoo bird Rudy's lengthy tirade against Cuomo and CNN may indicate that there is finally something tangible against Trump, this man who has tried to destroy America, that will be enough to remove him from office. I know we are skeptical after the failure of the Mueller Report that anything can be done to stop him, but from what I saw on MSNBC later in the evening, it looks like the stuff may just hit the fan this time.
Let's hope this is the real thing this time, and that Trump is not only forced from office but ends up in prison for the rest of his life, where he belongs.
God Bless America, and I wish you a peaceful evening. xoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, September 19, 2019
"Brigham Young" starring Tyrone Power & Linda Darnell + Deer In Whitney Canyon
Tonight's movie was "Brigham Young" (1940), starring Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell, through whose name I discovered the film in a database search. As you will infer from the title, it is a story of the Mormon leader, and in fact it briefly encompasses the story of church founder Joseph Smith as well. Really it is the saga of the Mormon exodus from Illinois in the 1840s, and it plays like an epic Western. You don't have to be Mormon, or even religious at all to enjoy the film, as it is a gripping story of survival against very difficult circumstances.
I know little about Mormonism, but I know the basics about Joseph Smith and his beliefs. I knew he was murdered by a mob, but I didn't know why. About Brigham Young I knew nothing except that he became the leader of the Mormon church and that a famous university is named after him.
The movie details everything a non-Mormon would need to know, including how Young came to become a Mormon himself, which is shown in flashback. The first half hour actually deals with the last stand of Smith (played eloquently by Vincent Price) and his parishioners in Illinois. The townspeople in Nauvoo (a real town), who are Christians themselves, nevertheless fear and hate Smith for his claim to be a prophet. They also detest the at-the-time Mormon practices of multiple marriage, which - because of the potential pregnancies that could ensue - causes them to worry that they will eventually be outpopulated in their own town.
History, and the movie, show what their reaction was, and it was savage. The townspeople of Nauvoo burned the Mormon settlement to the ground, shot Joseph Smith, then chased after the wagons with torches in hand as the Mormon people fled in the night with only the possessions they could carry.
Say what you will about Mormons, and I don't think most folks have a beef with them nowdays, but as they began they were a persecuted people. The movie shows them only wanting to live in peace. It also depicts Joseph Smith's philosophy of shared goods and community property, and early form of socialism, and as we have seen on the world stage, these ideas work best when implemented among small nations or groups. Smith did not believe in capitalism or the accruing of personal wealth, and Brigham Young carried on this policy after taking over the flock, adding on a few of his own beliefs such as his stand against tobacco and other intoxicants such as coffee and alcohol. The film shows us all of this in due course.
But it's really the story of their epic struggle to find a new place to settle after fleeing Illinois. As an aside, I ask you to imagine an America before police departments, when an angry mob of townspeople could murder or displace anyone they didn't like. There was such a time, and it wasn't all that long ago, less than 200 years.
Once the Mormons were out in the frontier, their battle was against nature. They faced frozen winters with no food. Many in the wagon train died of starvation and disease. The movie shows that the Indians in Iowa helped them out, and the two peoples became great friends forever after. The script is still ultimately about the leadership of Brigham Young, though, and it turns out that he will have to face a reckoning for his own deceptions, which have left his followers in dire straits. Young will need a miracle to get himself, and his people, out of their predicament, and he just might get one.....
As I say, you don't need to be Mormon to enjoy the picture. It is quite a tale, and I think it's part of How The West Was Won, as the Mormons were pioneers who helped to settle the Utah territory which was pure desert, like a moonscape. Who would have had the balls to settle there?
Well at any rate. I give "Brigham Young" Two Strong Thumbs Up. Unlike some biopics, this one doesn't get bogged down in historical details but instead concentrates on the hardships faced by the people as they cross the country.
Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell (who was only 17 at the time), make up one of the best looking pioneer couples ever to grace the screen, though both are earnest in their roles. I am a big fan of both actors, and especially Miss Darnell, who lived a short and tragic life.
So there you have it, a Mormon epic that you wouldn't have expected but that comes highly recommended to you by your expert reviewer. Dean Jagger plays Brigham Young, and you can't miss long tall John Carradine as his gun toting sidekick. /////
Today was my last day off, but I had a nice hike at Whitney Canyon and even saw some deer. Check out my photo on FB, posted earlier.
That's all for now. See you tomorrow morn, with tons of love in the meantime.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I know little about Mormonism, but I know the basics about Joseph Smith and his beliefs. I knew he was murdered by a mob, but I didn't know why. About Brigham Young I knew nothing except that he became the leader of the Mormon church and that a famous university is named after him.
The movie details everything a non-Mormon would need to know, including how Young came to become a Mormon himself, which is shown in flashback. The first half hour actually deals with the last stand of Smith (played eloquently by Vincent Price) and his parishioners in Illinois. The townspeople in Nauvoo (a real town), who are Christians themselves, nevertheless fear and hate Smith for his claim to be a prophet. They also detest the at-the-time Mormon practices of multiple marriage, which - because of the potential pregnancies that could ensue - causes them to worry that they will eventually be outpopulated in their own town.
History, and the movie, show what their reaction was, and it was savage. The townspeople of Nauvoo burned the Mormon settlement to the ground, shot Joseph Smith, then chased after the wagons with torches in hand as the Mormon people fled in the night with only the possessions they could carry.
Say what you will about Mormons, and I don't think most folks have a beef with them nowdays, but as they began they were a persecuted people. The movie shows them only wanting to live in peace. It also depicts Joseph Smith's philosophy of shared goods and community property, and early form of socialism, and as we have seen on the world stage, these ideas work best when implemented among small nations or groups. Smith did not believe in capitalism or the accruing of personal wealth, and Brigham Young carried on this policy after taking over the flock, adding on a few of his own beliefs such as his stand against tobacco and other intoxicants such as coffee and alcohol. The film shows us all of this in due course.
But it's really the story of their epic struggle to find a new place to settle after fleeing Illinois. As an aside, I ask you to imagine an America before police departments, when an angry mob of townspeople could murder or displace anyone they didn't like. There was such a time, and it wasn't all that long ago, less than 200 years.
Once the Mormons were out in the frontier, their battle was against nature. They faced frozen winters with no food. Many in the wagon train died of starvation and disease. The movie shows that the Indians in Iowa helped them out, and the two peoples became great friends forever after. The script is still ultimately about the leadership of Brigham Young, though, and it turns out that he will have to face a reckoning for his own deceptions, which have left his followers in dire straits. Young will need a miracle to get himself, and his people, out of their predicament, and he just might get one.....
As I say, you don't need to be Mormon to enjoy the picture. It is quite a tale, and I think it's part of How The West Was Won, as the Mormons were pioneers who helped to settle the Utah territory which was pure desert, like a moonscape. Who would have had the balls to settle there?
Well at any rate. I give "Brigham Young" Two Strong Thumbs Up. Unlike some biopics, this one doesn't get bogged down in historical details but instead concentrates on the hardships faced by the people as they cross the country.
Tyrone Power and Linda Darnell (who was only 17 at the time), make up one of the best looking pioneer couples ever to grace the screen, though both are earnest in their roles. I am a big fan of both actors, and especially Miss Darnell, who lived a short and tragic life.
So there you have it, a Mormon epic that you wouldn't have expected but that comes highly recommended to you by your expert reviewer. Dean Jagger plays Brigham Young, and you can't miss long tall John Carradine as his gun toting sidekick. /////
Today was my last day off, but I had a nice hike at Whitney Canyon and even saw some deer. Check out my photo on FB, posted earlier.
That's all for now. See you tomorrow morn, with tons of love in the meantime.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
"A Hatful Of Rain" starring Don Murray, Anthony Franciosa, Eva Marie Saint and Lloyd Nolan
Tonight's movie was called "A Hatful Of Rain" (1957), another heavyweight drama, this time set in New York City. Don Murray plays Johnny, a young man in his late 20s who seems to have a good life. He is married to Eva Marie Saint, they have a baby on the way, and they live in a modest but nicely furnished apartment at the edge of Manhattan. But we soon see this is only a facade, and it starts to unravel the minute Johnny's father (Lloyd Nolan) shows up unannounced at their doorstep. "Pop", as Johnny calls him, is friendly enough, though boisterous. He inquires about Johnny's brother Polo, who works as a bouncer at a local bar. Johnny was his father's favorite. Nolan considers Polo a "bum", even though it is Polo who is employed and Johnny who is only pretending to lead a normal life. But Johnny is starting to break down, and soon it will become difficult for him to maintain his composure.
Johnny is a junkie, addicted to heroin. When he has his fix, he can appear to be his everyday self, but it is becoming hard for him to score because he owes his dealer (Henry Silva) a ton of dough. Silva and his two cronies keep showing up at Johnny's door at the most inopportune moments - like when his Dad is there - and they want their money. Silva threatens to put Johnny in the hospital if he doesn't pay.
Johnny is a mess by now, trying to keep his addiction secret from his father and his wife, who knows something is wrong but thinks it has to do with another woman. His brother Polo knows all about Johnny's problem; he has gone broke from loaning Johnny money to pay for his dope.
His dealer Henry Silva has gone so far as providing Johnny with a pistol so he can rob someone in order to have the cash to pay his drug debt. But Johnny can't bring himself to do it. He is now in the bind of his life, as his pregnant wife is threatening to leave him and his domineering Dad is demanding to know what is wrong, as Johnny stays out night after night without coming home. He is going through the throes of withdrawal, he needs a fix, he has no money and his dealer is gonna kill him.
Man, was this ever a great "New York Movie". I discovered it during my "Fox Cinema Archives" search, and I was a little worried that it was gonna be one of those overly melodramatic, ultra method acted movies from the late 50s and early 60s that dealt with previously taboo subjects like drug addiction or schizophrenia. But to my pleasant surprise, the acting and script were realistic, about as close as you could get to a real life scenario. I would bet that Martin Scorcese is a fan of this movie, as it presages everything he would try to do in films like "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver", to use the city as a canvas on which to paint the lives of real people. In a "New York" movie, the concrete jungle is itself a character, and I have remarked that - having seen so many NYC films, I feel as if I know the neighborhoods even though I've never been there.
As with last night's picture "The Moon Is Down", we once again have an all-star cast in "A Hatful Of Rain". This is New York Actor's Studio progeny at their finest : Don Murray, who has had a sixty year career and who turned up at age 88 in a major role in the 2017 reboot of "Twin Peaks"; Eva Marie Saint, a legend who had worked with Kazan and Hitchcock; Tony Franciosa, who was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as "Polo", and Lloyd Nolan, known to my generation for his TV work in the 1960s, but who had a lengthy film career prior to that.
This is the kind of film, and direction (by Fred Zinneman), that set the stage for the gritty New York realism of the 1970s.
The story of heroin addiction is told without cliche and there is nuance in the characters. For instance, the dealer is more interested in getting his money than in killing Johnny. In a lesser film, the violence would win out. Also nuanced is Lloyd Nolan's Dad character. Yes, he shows impersonal bonhomie to his sons, treating them as if they were still twelve years old. But we also see that he has done the best he could as a single father, and that in his repressed way he loves his sons in spite of his damaged psychology.
Big knockout performances abound, especially Don Murray and Tony Franciosa as the brothers. Really though, there is not a lesser role in the film, in what is likely a landmark in drug addiction movies.
Two Huge Thumbs Up for "A Hatful Of Rain", a giant success on every level, for it's acting, it's direction, it's NYC location of the city at it's grittiest, and for it's expert black and white photography. One caveat : the dvd I watched, from Fox Cinema Archives, is presented in full frame, whereas the movie itself was shot in Cinemascope, i.e. widescreen. Hopefully, Criterion will one day get ahold of it and release it in it's original format, but until then don't let the full frame dissuade you.
See "A Hatful Of Rain", a tremendous motion picture and highly recommended.
That's all for tonight. See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Johnny is a junkie, addicted to heroin. When he has his fix, he can appear to be his everyday self, but it is becoming hard for him to score because he owes his dealer (Henry Silva) a ton of dough. Silva and his two cronies keep showing up at Johnny's door at the most inopportune moments - like when his Dad is there - and they want their money. Silva threatens to put Johnny in the hospital if he doesn't pay.
Johnny is a mess by now, trying to keep his addiction secret from his father and his wife, who knows something is wrong but thinks it has to do with another woman. His brother Polo knows all about Johnny's problem; he has gone broke from loaning Johnny money to pay for his dope.
His dealer Henry Silva has gone so far as providing Johnny with a pistol so he can rob someone in order to have the cash to pay his drug debt. But Johnny can't bring himself to do it. He is now in the bind of his life, as his pregnant wife is threatening to leave him and his domineering Dad is demanding to know what is wrong, as Johnny stays out night after night without coming home. He is going through the throes of withdrawal, he needs a fix, he has no money and his dealer is gonna kill him.
Man, was this ever a great "New York Movie". I discovered it during my "Fox Cinema Archives" search, and I was a little worried that it was gonna be one of those overly melodramatic, ultra method acted movies from the late 50s and early 60s that dealt with previously taboo subjects like drug addiction or schizophrenia. But to my pleasant surprise, the acting and script were realistic, about as close as you could get to a real life scenario. I would bet that Martin Scorcese is a fan of this movie, as it presages everything he would try to do in films like "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver", to use the city as a canvas on which to paint the lives of real people. In a "New York" movie, the concrete jungle is itself a character, and I have remarked that - having seen so many NYC films, I feel as if I know the neighborhoods even though I've never been there.
As with last night's picture "The Moon Is Down", we once again have an all-star cast in "A Hatful Of Rain". This is New York Actor's Studio progeny at their finest : Don Murray, who has had a sixty year career and who turned up at age 88 in a major role in the 2017 reboot of "Twin Peaks"; Eva Marie Saint, a legend who had worked with Kazan and Hitchcock; Tony Franciosa, who was nominated for an Academy Award for his role as "Polo", and Lloyd Nolan, known to my generation for his TV work in the 1960s, but who had a lengthy film career prior to that.
This is the kind of film, and direction (by Fred Zinneman), that set the stage for the gritty New York realism of the 1970s.
The story of heroin addiction is told without cliche and there is nuance in the characters. For instance, the dealer is more interested in getting his money than in killing Johnny. In a lesser film, the violence would win out. Also nuanced is Lloyd Nolan's Dad character. Yes, he shows impersonal bonhomie to his sons, treating them as if they were still twelve years old. But we also see that he has done the best he could as a single father, and that in his repressed way he loves his sons in spite of his damaged psychology.
Big knockout performances abound, especially Don Murray and Tony Franciosa as the brothers. Really though, there is not a lesser role in the film, in what is likely a landmark in drug addiction movies.
Two Huge Thumbs Up for "A Hatful Of Rain", a giant success on every level, for it's acting, it's direction, it's NYC location of the city at it's grittiest, and for it's expert black and white photography. One caveat : the dvd I watched, from Fox Cinema Archives, is presented in full frame, whereas the movie itself was shot in Cinemascope, i.e. widescreen. Hopefully, Criterion will one day get ahold of it and release it in it's original format, but until then don't let the full frame dissuade you.
See "A Hatful Of Rain", a tremendous motion picture and highly recommended.
That's all for tonight. See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
"The Moon Is Down" starring Cedric Hardwicke, Henry Travers & Lee J Cobb + Rendlesham
Tonight I watched a film called "The Moon Is Down", set in a small mining town in Norway during World War Two. The movie opens with the German invasion of that country, and at first, they try to portray themselves as benevolent conquerors. "We are here because we need your iron, but we are also your protectors so you need not fear". The Nazi Colonel (the great Cedric Hardwicke) tries to sell the town's Mayor on this line of hogwash, hoping to use him to placate the townspeople, but he resists, telling the Colonel that, unlike the Germans of that time, the Norwegians are a free people and will therefore never accept the presence of an invading force, no matter how benevolent they pretend to be. The Colonel then informs the Mayor that there is another way he can achieve compliance : through threats and force. He hopes to be able to maintain the peace, but the Mayor lets him know this is futile.
There is no way the miners will act as slaves for the German cause. Soon, they rebel. The German retaliation is swift and severe. Several miners are shot as an example. Then the rebellion goes underground. A sabotage effort is begun using covert means.
This is not a typical action oriented war movie, however. There are no battle scenes because the conflict is between soldiers and civilians. Instead, the plot is based upon the heavy dramatic tension between the occupying German soldiers and the Norwegian townspeople who don't want them there. The officers have the high hand and make no effort to be friendly, but it is not so easy for the regular soldiers, who have to interact with the people. A major thread involves a lieutenant who has given up on the Nazi cause. He knows Hitler is crazy and just wants to go home, but he is stuck in this town as an overseer, and everyone hates him, even though he tries hard to be friendly. There are other similar themes having to do with the psychology of the dominator wanting to be understood, to not be hated. Sir Cedric Hardwicke as the Colonel goes to great lengths to work with the Mayor to avoid violence, but the Mayor (played by the great Henry Travers) tries to explain to him that violence is inevitable, so long as the occupying forces remain in his country. The Colonel seems to understand this, but he is over a barrel due to the devil's knot the Nazis were tied in, where any disloyalty to Hitler might be reported back, and the dissenter then shot and disposed of. Hardwicke cannot show kindness nor cooperation toward the Mayor, lest one of his underlings see it and tattle on him.
The movie is a heavy drama about these wartime dilemmas, and about the immorality and futility of fascism. The script is based on a book of the same name by John Steinbeck, so the writing is as good as it gets, a treatise on basic human nature in the face of oppression. The cast is incredible, also featuring the noted character actor Peter van Eyck as the troubled lieutenant, and Lee J. Cobb as the town doctor. In one scene near the end, Cobb was onscreen with Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Henry Travers, who among other roles played the angel "Clarence" in "It's A Wonderful Life. The three were stuck in a room, playing a fatalistic scene where Hardwick, the Colonel was quietly trying to sympathise with Cobb and Travers, the two Norwegians. I was in the scene, too, as the viewer, and I was sitting there thinking, "man, that is a heavyweight group up there on the screen". You could feel the majesty dripping from the pixels..... :)
I give "The Moon Is Down" Two Solid Thumbs Up. It's a philosophical anti-war film rather than a battle picture, but there is still enough standard intrigue to recommend it to fans of regular WW2 films.
I hadn't heard of it until last week, when I did my library search of "Fox Cinema Archives". I am glad the studios keep releasing these lost gems discovered in their vaults, and I hope they have hundreds more to keep me supplied for the future. I am on pace to watch upwards of 250 movies this year, almost all of them from decades past, and I do worry about the day when I run out, and my searches produce nothingmore. :)
I am still off work, and I had a nice hike today out at Santa Susana. It was nothing fancy, just meandering around the park with no climbing, but I had the place to myself and the vibe out there is always steady and restorative, thanks to it's Native American history and the Great Spirit that watches over the place. I recommend going there so you can see for yourself. :):)
That's basically all for today. I am still working my way through the almost 700 pages of Jim Penniston's "Rendlesham Enigma" book, and I have already mentioned how much it is blowing my mind, but there are also certain parallels to my own story that have to do with containment - i.e. the way in which agencies from the government act to put the brakes on a developing story about a classified experience - and I must say that there are details in Jim's story that line up exactly with mine, such as his being subjected to drug induced hypnosis and given sodium pentothal, also known as "truth serum". He may have also had part of his memory erased - and I recommend you read up on the Rendlesham Forest Incident to see what I am talking about - and the way Sgt. Penniston describes it, his experience in that regard is very similar to mine. /////
That is all I know for today. See you in the morning.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
There is no way the miners will act as slaves for the German cause. Soon, they rebel. The German retaliation is swift and severe. Several miners are shot as an example. Then the rebellion goes underground. A sabotage effort is begun using covert means.
This is not a typical action oriented war movie, however. There are no battle scenes because the conflict is between soldiers and civilians. Instead, the plot is based upon the heavy dramatic tension between the occupying German soldiers and the Norwegian townspeople who don't want them there. The officers have the high hand and make no effort to be friendly, but it is not so easy for the regular soldiers, who have to interact with the people. A major thread involves a lieutenant who has given up on the Nazi cause. He knows Hitler is crazy and just wants to go home, but he is stuck in this town as an overseer, and everyone hates him, even though he tries hard to be friendly. There are other similar themes having to do with the psychology of the dominator wanting to be understood, to not be hated. Sir Cedric Hardwicke as the Colonel goes to great lengths to work with the Mayor to avoid violence, but the Mayor (played by the great Henry Travers) tries to explain to him that violence is inevitable, so long as the occupying forces remain in his country. The Colonel seems to understand this, but he is over a barrel due to the devil's knot the Nazis were tied in, where any disloyalty to Hitler might be reported back, and the dissenter then shot and disposed of. Hardwicke cannot show kindness nor cooperation toward the Mayor, lest one of his underlings see it and tattle on him.
The movie is a heavy drama about these wartime dilemmas, and about the immorality and futility of fascism. The script is based on a book of the same name by John Steinbeck, so the writing is as good as it gets, a treatise on basic human nature in the face of oppression. The cast is incredible, also featuring the noted character actor Peter van Eyck as the troubled lieutenant, and Lee J. Cobb as the town doctor. In one scene near the end, Cobb was onscreen with Sir Cedric Hardwicke and Henry Travers, who among other roles played the angel "Clarence" in "It's A Wonderful Life. The three were stuck in a room, playing a fatalistic scene where Hardwick, the Colonel was quietly trying to sympathise with Cobb and Travers, the two Norwegians. I was in the scene, too, as the viewer, and I was sitting there thinking, "man, that is a heavyweight group up there on the screen". You could feel the majesty dripping from the pixels..... :)
I give "The Moon Is Down" Two Solid Thumbs Up. It's a philosophical anti-war film rather than a battle picture, but there is still enough standard intrigue to recommend it to fans of regular WW2 films.
I hadn't heard of it until last week, when I did my library search of "Fox Cinema Archives". I am glad the studios keep releasing these lost gems discovered in their vaults, and I hope they have hundreds more to keep me supplied for the future. I am on pace to watch upwards of 250 movies this year, almost all of them from decades past, and I do worry about the day when I run out, and my searches produce nothingmore. :)
I am still off work, and I had a nice hike today out at Santa Susana. It was nothing fancy, just meandering around the park with no climbing, but I had the place to myself and the vibe out there is always steady and restorative, thanks to it's Native American history and the Great Spirit that watches over the place. I recommend going there so you can see for yourself. :):)
That's basically all for today. I am still working my way through the almost 700 pages of Jim Penniston's "Rendlesham Enigma" book, and I have already mentioned how much it is blowing my mind, but there are also certain parallels to my own story that have to do with containment - i.e. the way in which agencies from the government act to put the brakes on a developing story about a classified experience - and I must say that there are details in Jim's story that line up exactly with mine, such as his being subjected to drug induced hypnosis and given sodium pentothal, also known as "truth serum". He may have also had part of his memory erased - and I recommend you read up on the Rendlesham Forest Incident to see what I am talking about - and the way Sgt. Penniston describes it, his experience in that regard is very similar to mine. /////
That is all I know for today. See you in the morning.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, September 16, 2019
Hey Elizabeth! (huge congratulations) + Odds & Ends
Hey Elizabeth! Wow, super big-time congratulations on the Versus Me billboard! I saw the band photos of James and the drummer a couple of weeks ago on your FB, and I assumed it was your latest photo shoot for them, but I didn't know it was gonna be part of a promo campaign! Is your photo also gonna be the album cover? Wow again, and triple wow. That makes two Septembers in a row that you have had your work displayed outdoors on a large format surface. I just think it's great and as always I am super happy for you! I am glad you've kept your association with James and Versus Me and I remember the funny posts he would make a few years ago when you first started working with them.
Great work, Elizabeth. As you said in your recent FB post about your photo of the Barry sisters, "how time flies", and it's amazing to think that was seven years ago this week, and now here you are with your work on a billboard. That's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about looking at the big picture in life, and seeing how things add up over time. That is how you see your intent at work, over a period of time. I can remember when you did that photo session with the sisters, because you had mentioned to me that you were going to photograph two redheads. That was the Summer of 2012, and I know I was badgering you at the time (remember the Agalloch show?) about finishing another cover song to follow up "Autre Temps", and you were thinking about changing your major at UW, and then you said you knew these two sisters you were gonna photograph......that was a fun summer.
And think of all that has happened since then. :):)
Well again, congratulations, and I predict more good things to come. I've been right so far. :):)
I've been watching a lot of movies lately, as usual. Notable was a French comedy from the early 1930s called "Le Million", which was an absolute gem, highest recommendation. I also finished "Taken", the 2002 Steven Spielberg miniseries about Alien Abduction, which was mindblowing for the most part, but I was disappointed - just a tad - in the direction the show took in the final few episodes, and in the overblown philosophical ending. I felt as if the writer - Leslie Bohem - used his lead character in order to voice his own philosophical beliefs, which I disagreed with wholeheartedly. I still give the 15 hour epic an 8/10 rating overall, and two huge thumbs up and a high recommendation, but I also felt, near the end, that Bohem the writer should have kept his ego out of the script, as his pronouncements were not half as brilliant as he may have thought.
Now you are going, "man, I've gotta watch 'Taken', so I can see what Ad is talking about"!
And you should watch it, because it is mostly amazing. I wish it had concentrated more on the nuts and bolts of the abductions - which it started out to do - instead of getting sidetracked by the various plot devices involving lead characters from the FBI and the military, and their warring desires to gain control over the hoped for Alien capture scenario. I'll stop harping on it, but I hate when New Agers try to take over legitimate UFO phenomenology i.e. things that have really happened, and turn it into a big, shapeless feel good mush.
Well, now I'm probably over criticizing the show, because it really has a ton of awesome stuff, but those last couple of episodes were a bit of a let down, not because of the plot but because of the voice-overs of Leslie Bohem's philosophy.
Well, the hell with it Ad! The second season of "Project Blue Book" is coming up, so stick with that.
Yeah, you're right. That show has been aces in every episode.
Rams won today, big time over Saints, and even though Brees got knocked out with a hand injury early on, it wouldn't have made much difference had he played the entire game, so quit bitching, Saints fans. Rams are looking badass so far.
We had good singing in church this morning, too.
I hope you had a nice weekend. I've still got a few things to catch up on, and I am reading "Growing Things" by Paul Tremblay too. I call him "The Trembler", and I think he is the closest thing to Stephen King since Stephen King. Man is he great.
See you in the morning with truckloads of love in between. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Great work, Elizabeth. As you said in your recent FB post about your photo of the Barry sisters, "how time flies", and it's amazing to think that was seven years ago this week, and now here you are with your work on a billboard. That's the kind of thing I mean when I talk about looking at the big picture in life, and seeing how things add up over time. That is how you see your intent at work, over a period of time. I can remember when you did that photo session with the sisters, because you had mentioned to me that you were going to photograph two redheads. That was the Summer of 2012, and I know I was badgering you at the time (remember the Agalloch show?) about finishing another cover song to follow up "Autre Temps", and you were thinking about changing your major at UW, and then you said you knew these two sisters you were gonna photograph......that was a fun summer.
And think of all that has happened since then. :):)
Well again, congratulations, and I predict more good things to come. I've been right so far. :):)
I've been watching a lot of movies lately, as usual. Notable was a French comedy from the early 1930s called "Le Million", which was an absolute gem, highest recommendation. I also finished "Taken", the 2002 Steven Spielberg miniseries about Alien Abduction, which was mindblowing for the most part, but I was disappointed - just a tad - in the direction the show took in the final few episodes, and in the overblown philosophical ending. I felt as if the writer - Leslie Bohem - used his lead character in order to voice his own philosophical beliefs, which I disagreed with wholeheartedly. I still give the 15 hour epic an 8/10 rating overall, and two huge thumbs up and a high recommendation, but I also felt, near the end, that Bohem the writer should have kept his ego out of the script, as his pronouncements were not half as brilliant as he may have thought.
Now you are going, "man, I've gotta watch 'Taken', so I can see what Ad is talking about"!
And you should watch it, because it is mostly amazing. I wish it had concentrated more on the nuts and bolts of the abductions - which it started out to do - instead of getting sidetracked by the various plot devices involving lead characters from the FBI and the military, and their warring desires to gain control over the hoped for Alien capture scenario. I'll stop harping on it, but I hate when New Agers try to take over legitimate UFO phenomenology i.e. things that have really happened, and turn it into a big, shapeless feel good mush.
Well, now I'm probably over criticizing the show, because it really has a ton of awesome stuff, but those last couple of episodes were a bit of a let down, not because of the plot but because of the voice-overs of Leslie Bohem's philosophy.
Well, the hell with it Ad! The second season of "Project Blue Book" is coming up, so stick with that.
Yeah, you're right. That show has been aces in every episode.
Rams won today, big time over Saints, and even though Brees got knocked out with a hand injury early on, it wouldn't have made much difference had he played the entire game, so quit bitching, Saints fans. Rams are looking badass so far.
We had good singing in church this morning, too.
I hope you had a nice weekend. I've still got a few things to catch up on, and I am reading "Growing Things" by Paul Tremblay too. I call him "The Trembler", and I think he is the closest thing to Stephen King since Stephen King. Man is he great.
See you in the morning with truckloads of love in between. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Placerita + "The Day Mars Invaded Earth"
This afternoon I drove out to Placerita Canyon. I hadn't been there since 2017, and today was only my second visit since the Spring of 2016. A few months after that, in July, a terrible wildfire raged through the area and destroyed part of the park, including a lot of the main trail, known as the Canyon Trail. Before the fire, I used to go to Placerita on a regular basis, as you may remember if you saw my numerous photographic posts on FB in the years 2014-15. Back then, the two mile Canyon Trail leading from Placerita to Walker Ranch was one of my favorite hikes. It was such a peaceful and beautiful trail with gorgeous oaks and sycamore trees. The trail has been closed since July 2016, so I just wandered around the rest of the park without going on an actual hike, but the good news is that after three long years, the funds have been approved to repair the Canyon Trail, and according to their website, it should be ready to re-open by next Spring. I can't wait, but in the meantime it was just good to be at the park anyway, especially cause it was 100 degrees outside, haha.... :)
I haven't been doing as many Hundred Degree Hikes as I used to, but today was a day off, so nothing could stop me. :):)
After Placerita, I stopped off at Aliso on my way home, so I could do an actual hike and get some daily mileage in.
This eve I watched a weird little sci-fi called "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" (1962). I'd never heard of this one, and was expecting flying saucers and bug-eyed aliens, but what I got was more like an extended episode of "Outer Limits" crossed with "Playhouse 90". A scientist working on a Mars probe down at Cape Canaveral is stunned, along with the rest of his team, when the rover they have landed catches fire and explodes.
Yes, this movie shows an early Mars Rover in 1962! But it explodes just as it is transmitting a message, which the NASA team never receives. The mission is over, the scientist (Kent Taylor) is dismayed, so he heads back to California to his wife (Marie Windsor) who was just about to divorce him because he is never home.
When he returns, she isn't home either, but is staying at the gigantic mansion of her in-laws, who have asked her to house sit while they are away. So far, this doesn't sound like much of an Alien Invasion story, right? Well, the place she is house sitting is the famous Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills. The filmmakers must've spent 9/10s of their budget renting the joint out, but they make great use of their time on the property, because the movie then locks down at that location and becomes about keeping the Martians out.
But wait! It's hard to tell who the Martians are, because they look just like the scientist and his wife, and their two children. Think "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" once again, but with a psychological bent, because the scientist gets into a debate with the Martian Him about what the motive is for taking over our planet. I won't bother trying to explain it, but it's a whole lot weirder than it sounds, and best of all, the movie is shot in rich black and white and the photography is excellent, making full use of the geometry of Greystone's architecture. This is one of those types of isolated character plots that I love, where the entire cast consists of only a handful of people, and they are cut off from the rest of the world, and have no other option but to solve the problem on their own. Here, they are stuck on the grounds of the immense Greystone Mansion, which has a spooky history in real life, and they are fighting aliens from Mars who don't resemble ants but are actually forms of energy who are able to take the shape of humans and impersonate them.
This is well made, low budget, high production value stuff. It's all about the drama, and using your imagination to fill in the gaps. It's Pasadena Playhouse with Greystone Mansion as the stage.
I give "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" Two Thumbs Up. It clocks in at a wiry 70 minutes, no time is wasted and every scene leads into the next in a linear fashion. And, it's weird. And isolated.
Sci-Fi fans will not go wrong by looking for it. I discovered it myself in a library database search for "Fox Cinema Archives".
That's basically my story for today and I'm sticking to it. Before I cash in my chips for the night, I want to once again mention the book I am reading, which is called "The Rendlesham Enigma".
If you are a UFO buff, or if you simply want to know what is going on in this world, you should read this book. I think it is obvious to say that the biggest revelation that could come out of the news media, short of the return of Jesus, would be that there was proof that Planet Earth had been visited by an intelligence from another world.
This is what happened in Rendlesham Forest in December 1980, and the book "The Rendlesham Enigma" gives an extremely detailed, 675 page account of the entire affair.
It is a book I take very much to heart, given my own experience. Read it if you were involved in 1989.
That's all I know for tonight. See you tomorrow morning in church.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoox :):)
I haven't been doing as many Hundred Degree Hikes as I used to, but today was a day off, so nothing could stop me. :):)
After Placerita, I stopped off at Aliso on my way home, so I could do an actual hike and get some daily mileage in.
This eve I watched a weird little sci-fi called "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" (1962). I'd never heard of this one, and was expecting flying saucers and bug-eyed aliens, but what I got was more like an extended episode of "Outer Limits" crossed with "Playhouse 90". A scientist working on a Mars probe down at Cape Canaveral is stunned, along with the rest of his team, when the rover they have landed catches fire and explodes.
Yes, this movie shows an early Mars Rover in 1962! But it explodes just as it is transmitting a message, which the NASA team never receives. The mission is over, the scientist (Kent Taylor) is dismayed, so he heads back to California to his wife (Marie Windsor) who was just about to divorce him because he is never home.
When he returns, she isn't home either, but is staying at the gigantic mansion of her in-laws, who have asked her to house sit while they are away. So far, this doesn't sound like much of an Alien Invasion story, right? Well, the place she is house sitting is the famous Greystone Mansion in Beverly Hills. The filmmakers must've spent 9/10s of their budget renting the joint out, but they make great use of their time on the property, because the movie then locks down at that location and becomes about keeping the Martians out.
But wait! It's hard to tell who the Martians are, because they look just like the scientist and his wife, and their two children. Think "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" once again, but with a psychological bent, because the scientist gets into a debate with the Martian Him about what the motive is for taking over our planet. I won't bother trying to explain it, but it's a whole lot weirder than it sounds, and best of all, the movie is shot in rich black and white and the photography is excellent, making full use of the geometry of Greystone's architecture. This is one of those types of isolated character plots that I love, where the entire cast consists of only a handful of people, and they are cut off from the rest of the world, and have no other option but to solve the problem on their own. Here, they are stuck on the grounds of the immense Greystone Mansion, which has a spooky history in real life, and they are fighting aliens from Mars who don't resemble ants but are actually forms of energy who are able to take the shape of humans and impersonate them.
This is well made, low budget, high production value stuff. It's all about the drama, and using your imagination to fill in the gaps. It's Pasadena Playhouse with Greystone Mansion as the stage.
I give "The Day Mars Invaded Earth" Two Thumbs Up. It clocks in at a wiry 70 minutes, no time is wasted and every scene leads into the next in a linear fashion. And, it's weird. And isolated.
Sci-Fi fans will not go wrong by looking for it. I discovered it myself in a library database search for "Fox Cinema Archives".
That's basically my story for today and I'm sticking to it. Before I cash in my chips for the night, I want to once again mention the book I am reading, which is called "The Rendlesham Enigma".
If you are a UFO buff, or if you simply want to know what is going on in this world, you should read this book. I think it is obvious to say that the biggest revelation that could come out of the news media, short of the return of Jesus, would be that there was proof that Planet Earth had been visited by an intelligence from another world.
This is what happened in Rendlesham Forest in December 1980, and the book "The Rendlesham Enigma" gives an extremely detailed, 675 page account of the entire affair.
It is a book I take very much to heart, given my own experience. Read it if you were involved in 1989.
That's all I know for tonight. See you tomorrow morning in church.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoox :):)
Saturday, September 14, 2019
I'm Back! + "It : Chapter Two"
I'm back. I hope you enjoyed reading "Dear Ann", though "enjoyed" is not the proper word. I guess I should say that if you read it - "you" being the General You - I hope you found it informative and enlightening, I hope you got something positive out of it. I spent a lot of time each night really thinking about what I wanted to say, and then transferring those thoughts into precise sentences, because I didn't want to ramble on or repeat myself. I also went back and edited each night's work the following day, to ensure that everything was articulated in the way I intended. Writing is so much different than speaking, and with writing, the author's meaning can be misconstrued if each sentence isn't properly constructed. I wanted "Dear Ann" to read as if it had been written down on paper and sent to Ann as a real letter, and in reading it back myself, I was very pleased with the results. I said everything I wanted to say, and who knows, maybe one day Ann will read it herself, if not in the near future then maybe at least in my lifetime.
Because the writing process went so well, I have thought about continuing the story, and it must be kept in mind that it is a true story and one that is very important for me to resolve. Were I to continue, the next segment would be very graphic and unpleasant - far worse than anything you read in "Dear Ann - and so that factor is something I will really have to consider before making a decision on whether or not to write it down online. I am talking about the Rappaport kidnapping incident, which occurred on the night of September 2nd 1989, and while I wrote about it once before, in 2006 on Myspace, I feel that my writing ability has advanced enough that I could now give it the descriptive quality it deserves. I have also recollected a few details since 2006 that are very important to the story, but it would in no way be easy reading material, because Mr. Rappaport was (and I assume still is) a sick son-of-a-bitch.
I will think about it for a couple of days, and if suddenly you see a blog continuing the story, then there it will be. :)
For now, I'll just tell you what's been going on in the meantime, since I began "Dear Ann". Today was Friday the 13th, and because I had the day off I figured it was the perfect time to go see "It : Chapter Two". I drove up to the Granada Hills Regency at 3pm, and to my surprise and good fortune I had the theater almost to myself. I sat up close and settled in; "It" Part One had blown me off the map when it was released two years ago, and I was plenty pumped up for this movie, which is not a sequel but rather the second half of the whole story. Stephen King's book is 1100 pages long, which is why it took two movies totaling over five hours in length to properly depict it on screen. Anyhow, I was ready, because "It" is not only my favorite SK book, but one of my favorite books period. There is so much feeling and truth in it, about childhood and friendship and our transition into adulthood and the way in which our secrets and fears both bond us and keep us apart.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, well anyway, King wrote "It" in 1986, before anything happened to me, and when I read it, it resonated so deeply that I must have stored it away someplace inside my emotional center. SK touched a nerve in so many of us with that book, not just because of the horror but because of the understanding and the love. King understood childhood in a way that has rarely been captured, including the horrors kids face when thrust into the adult world.
I was very much looking forward to the first movie when it was announced, because the first version of "It", which was made for television in 1990 or thereabouts, was okay and even good in places but fell far short overall in delivering the goods from King's book.
And as we all know, director Andy Muschietti knocked "It : Chapter One" so far out of the park that it became the biggest grossing horror film of all time.
And I am pleased to report that "It : Chapter Two" is also a masterpiece. The movie runs nearly three hours, which seems to be challenging for some fans according to the reviews I've seen, but trust me, there is no way the story could have been completed in a shorter format, and - despite a couple of slowdowns caused by breaks in continuity - nearly every moment of the film is filled with so much story and action and mindblowing set pieces that I hardly know where to start because I am still absorbing what I saw. What stood out above all, however, was the acting. You normally don't expect great acting from a horror movie, right? But you get it here, especially from James McAvoy and Bill Hader, but also the rest of the actors that make up the adult Losers from the story. The other thing that makes this movie a "10" in my opinion is it's heart. The message behind all the horror - which continues almost non-stop - is that it is love and loyalty to one another that get us through life. This is portrayed in brief moments that are powerful enough to leave a tear in your eye. The end of the movie, and of the "It" saga, will resonate with you for a long time.
I call "It" - both movies put together - one of the greatest achievements in horror history, in addition to being humanistic and beautiful. Gigantic kudos to director Muschietti and his team.
"It : Chapter Two"" is a must see, and because I spent more time describing the movie than I thought I would, I must now postpone the other stuff I was gonna add about the movies I've watched in the past two weeks, and the books I've been reading. But I'll catch you up, so don't worry. I am off work tomorrow, too, and for the next several days.
See you in the morning. Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Because the writing process went so well, I have thought about continuing the story, and it must be kept in mind that it is a true story and one that is very important for me to resolve. Were I to continue, the next segment would be very graphic and unpleasant - far worse than anything you read in "Dear Ann - and so that factor is something I will really have to consider before making a decision on whether or not to write it down online. I am talking about the Rappaport kidnapping incident, which occurred on the night of September 2nd 1989, and while I wrote about it once before, in 2006 on Myspace, I feel that my writing ability has advanced enough that I could now give it the descriptive quality it deserves. I have also recollected a few details since 2006 that are very important to the story, but it would in no way be easy reading material, because Mr. Rappaport was (and I assume still is) a sick son-of-a-bitch.
I will think about it for a couple of days, and if suddenly you see a blog continuing the story, then there it will be. :)
For now, I'll just tell you what's been going on in the meantime, since I began "Dear Ann". Today was Friday the 13th, and because I had the day off I figured it was the perfect time to go see "It : Chapter Two". I drove up to the Granada Hills Regency at 3pm, and to my surprise and good fortune I had the theater almost to myself. I sat up close and settled in; "It" Part One had blown me off the map when it was released two years ago, and I was plenty pumped up for this movie, which is not a sequel but rather the second half of the whole story. Stephen King's book is 1100 pages long, which is why it took two movies totaling over five hours in length to properly depict it on screen. Anyhow, I was ready, because "It" is not only my favorite SK book, but one of my favorite books period. There is so much feeling and truth in it, about childhood and friendship and our transition into adulthood and the way in which our secrets and fears both bond us and keep us apart.
Sound familiar?
Yeah, well anyway, King wrote "It" in 1986, before anything happened to me, and when I read it, it resonated so deeply that I must have stored it away someplace inside my emotional center. SK touched a nerve in so many of us with that book, not just because of the horror but because of the understanding and the love. King understood childhood in a way that has rarely been captured, including the horrors kids face when thrust into the adult world.
I was very much looking forward to the first movie when it was announced, because the first version of "It", which was made for television in 1990 or thereabouts, was okay and even good in places but fell far short overall in delivering the goods from King's book.
And as we all know, director Andy Muschietti knocked "It : Chapter One" so far out of the park that it became the biggest grossing horror film of all time.
And I am pleased to report that "It : Chapter Two" is also a masterpiece. The movie runs nearly three hours, which seems to be challenging for some fans according to the reviews I've seen, but trust me, there is no way the story could have been completed in a shorter format, and - despite a couple of slowdowns caused by breaks in continuity - nearly every moment of the film is filled with so much story and action and mindblowing set pieces that I hardly know where to start because I am still absorbing what I saw. What stood out above all, however, was the acting. You normally don't expect great acting from a horror movie, right? But you get it here, especially from James McAvoy and Bill Hader, but also the rest of the actors that make up the adult Losers from the story. The other thing that makes this movie a "10" in my opinion is it's heart. The message behind all the horror - which continues almost non-stop - is that it is love and loyalty to one another that get us through life. This is portrayed in brief moments that are powerful enough to leave a tear in your eye. The end of the movie, and of the "It" saga, will resonate with you for a long time.
I call "It" - both movies put together - one of the greatest achievements in horror history, in addition to being humanistic and beautiful. Gigantic kudos to director Muschietti and his team.
"It : Chapter Two"" is a must see, and because I spent more time describing the movie than I thought I would, I must now postpone the other stuff I was gonna add about the movies I've watched in the past two weeks, and the books I've been reading. But I'll catch you up, so don't worry. I am off work tomorrow, too, and for the next several days.
See you in the morning. Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Dear Ann (Part Ten, the conclusion)
Dear Ann, Part Ten :
And so, Ann, what I want to ask you is this - would you consider talking to me about what you remember from that night? It wouldn't have to be in person, or even over the phone, though those would be the best ways. But if you aren't comfortable with direct communication, you could write me a letter similar to the one I've written you. You could even send it by email. I know how difficult this subject is, believe me, and I am only asking you because I have no one else to turn to. For over twenty years I have tried to get answers about what happened to me between the dates of September 1 and September 12, 1989, but my queries have been met with a wall of silence. I have tried and tried and tried, but not only has no one ever been willing to talk to me, no one including those I know were present has ever even acknowledged that something out of the ordinary happened to all of us.
I know you are aware of my attempts to contact your sister in the mid-90s. That was a fiasco of my own making. I've apologized for it, and paid for it, and though I do not feel I deserved the response that was meted out to me, I've accepted responsibility for my actions at that time. I was only wanting to know what it was that I was remembering. That was why I tried so relentlessly to get Lillian to talk to me in 1995. My memories were just then coming back to me in force, but they were fragmented and I couldn't make sense of them. I knew something enormous had happened, but I didn't know what. In short, I was confused. When my life became stable, I used to send your sister a Christmas card every year, from about 1999 until 2015. I stopped after that year because I discovered on Facebook that she was now married. But in my Christmas cards and letters, I would very often allude to 1989, not in a blunt way but just by making suggestions that, in my opinion, it was very important that we not forget the truth of what happened to us, and that it was equally important that we tell that truth.
I sent Lillian a Christmas card for about 15 years in a row, give or take, but she never responded. I knew how incredibly difficult it would have been for her to gather the courage to talk to me, but I always hoped that one day it might happen. Once I saw that she was married, I stopped writing, and while I haven't given up hope that Lilly may one day talk about what she knows, I no longer harbor any expectations. As for her participation in the September 1989 event, I did not see her after she was placed in the back of an ambulance in the parking lot of Northridge Hospital, after she was attacked by Howard Schaller on the first night of September 1. I do have a vague memory of seeing her at the Wilbur Wash event, which took place many days later, but at the current time I cannot be certain of it's veracity. My guess is that she knows a lot more about what happened than I do, and while I feel that her continued silence is profoundly wrong for a number of reasons, I have also considered the possibility that, like me, she may have signed a non-disclosure oath all those years ago, but unlike me, she may have not had amnesia and was therefore aware of the gravity of her oath all along.
I have also considered, Ann, that over the years she may have been intimidated into silence by one faction or another.
Please know - and I hope Lillian knows - that I have never blamed her for what happened. Without going into a long explanation, it is sufficient to say that whatever the mystery behind the overall event, it involved a whole lot more than a domestic dispute in a Reseda apartment. My opinion of Lilly has never changed, nor have my feelings toward her.
But Ann, I also need to know what happened to me, and I will interject once again to say that it didn't just happen to me, but to all of us who were present. But speaking for myself, I can only say that it has been monumentally hard for me, not to know the entirety of the event, and most importantly why it happened. I have struggled mightily for all these years, hoping to recover another sliver of memory, but the stream more or less dried up around 2008, excepting the handful of revelations I have mentioned that returned to me since then.
The truth is that I live with this every day of my life, and every day I wonder what it was all about. This can be very debilitating at times, because it never goes away. It's there when I wake up in the morning, and it's there when I go to sleep at night. I cannot pretend it didn't happen, as certain friends and family members do even though they know better. I know it happened and so do they, and for that matter so does Lillian and so do you, I am sure.
So I am asking, very simply, if you will talk to me. If you do not wish to, that is fine, I understand and I will not bother you again. But if you decide that you are willing to write to me, in addition to asking for your memories of that night and the next day (in their entirety) I'd also like to ask you the following questions. I will ask them in the order of the incidents they correspond to :
1) Do you know why that "security thug" showed up at the door to Terry's apartment? I realize you wouldn't have direct knowledge as you weren't involved in any of the proceedings prior to arriving after the fact, but I ask because of the possibility that this information might have been told to you by someone else.
2) Do you have any idea why Mary Sean Young was present? I know that, on the surface, it sounds absurd for me to say that she was there, and that we rode in her car. But we did. And she was there. I have no idea why she was there, but I saw her with my own eyes, and she also has an unmistakable voice. I was, and still am, a fan of hers. Lillian and I saw her in several movies. After I joined Facebook in 2008, I saw that Mary was also a member and I sent her a friend request, which she accepted. At around the same time, give or take a year, I had obtained her email address (I don't recall how), and I sent her an email with a synopsis of her participation in the events on the night of September 1st, 1989. I was polite, in no way accusatory, and I gave a thorough explanation, but I assured her I knew she was there and that she had driven me to the hospital that night, along with others, meaning you, Ann, and Lys. To my surprise, Mary emailed me back. She stated that she "didn't think it was her", and that "people often mistake me for someone else". She was very nice in her reply, wished me well in my quest, but basically disavowed her presence on that night.
Mary is an interesting person, a "conspiracy theorist" in her own right, and I do not mean that in a derogatory way. As I mentioned, her Hollywood career began it's downward slide after 1989, and she had been a star on the rise prior to that. Nowdays, she rails on Twitter in support of Donald Trump. In Mary's defense, regarding her denial of having been at Concord Square, I should mention that I have observed the same honest seeming "denial phenomenon" in other people who I know for a fact were present at one or more of the events in the twelve day sequence. I have said to others, including those close to me : "I know you were there (at such and such a location), and there is no doubt about it", and in certain cases I have gotten an honestly baffled response, where I do not think the person is lying to me but rather is not remembering the experience. But that happened to me, too. I remembered none of my experience for four years, so I suppose it's possible that others to this day do not remember, or remember in only a vague way that is frightening for them to think about. In Mary's case, because she is a bit of a strange person, I am not sure what to make of her denial.
I only know for certain that she was there. What's more, she wasn't the only well-known person who would become a participant as the days went on. So, Ann, I am asking you if you know why she was there. She appeared on the scene very quickly, within an hour of the arrival of the paramedics, and likely sooner. Someone must have called her, though I can't imagine it was anyone I know.
In any event, if you have any information about Mary's presence that night, I would be grateful if you could relate it to me. Thanks, Ann.
3) Do you know why Howard Schaller was waiting for us at Northridge Hospital? I have given you the only possibility I have been able to deduce, which involved a drug deal that went bad and included your sister. To repeat, she would have had no way of knowing or ever meeting Howard if not for my late friend Dave S., so it is likely my conclusion about a drug deal is on the mark. However, I know nothing about the specifics of this arrangement, or how it came about. All I know is that I was utterly shocked to see Howard suddenly attacking our car, totally out of the blue, and then I was doubly shocked to see that Lillian was his target. Because she is your sister, I can understand if you don't wish to answer this question. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you did. I repeat that it is very hard for me to wonder what happened that night, and why.
4) Do you know, Ann, why Federal agents were involved? In other words, do you know why a domestic argument between three people, which should have brought a police response, was instead responded to by a Federal agency, and with such urgency that a helicopter was landing in the street adjacent to Northridge Hospital within 30 to 45 minutes of the violence we experienced in the parking lot? There is something I have always wondered, Ann, about the events of that first night and consequently the overall twelve day experience.
I have asked myself : "What if I had not gone down to Concord Square that night, but instead stayed home. Would a similar situation have eventually presented itself (i.e. was something building up), or did I trigger the reactions of everyone involved by showing up and forcing a confrontation"? What I am asking has to do with not only the presence of the Federal agents but the swiftness of their response, which suggests to me that someone was under surveillance. I have even considered the possibility that Lillian was part of a sting operation, which once again seems absurd on the surface, but something has to account for the response of a Federal agency and for the fact that Howard Schaller knew who Lilly was.
Were agents keeping an eye on the situation prior to the night of September 1st? Or did they respond suddenly to an emergency, brought about by the unexpected confrontation in Terry's apartment, and the fact that an "apple cart" of some sort had been upset?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, Ann, but perhaps you do. At any rate, after all these years I finally decided to go directly to who I thought might be the source. In 2017, I filed an FOIA and Privacy Act request with the CIA, asking for any and all documents pertaining to my name. I listed the specifics of the situation in brief form. And I got back what is known as a "Glomar" response, in which the CIA told me they can "neither confirm nor deny" that "there is an association" between myself and the Agency. The letter they sent me is written in legalese, and so it must be parsed several times in order to glean what they are getting at. But they list the official reasons why my request for information about myself was denied, and - in short - it was denied because, though they can't confirm or deny it, the information is classified and is protected by an ordinance that prohibits the release of National Security information.
I have read over my letter from the CIA again and again, and also a second letter I got from them in response to my letter of appeal regarding their denial, and I have come to the conclusion that we were involved in a highly classified National Security event.
I have been writing about 1989 for many years, Ann, and I often refer to the twelve day experience as "The Biggest Secret In America". I say that because it has never even been acknowledged. I mean, Roswell was acknowledged and is now part of UFO folklore. Everybody has heard of Area 51, and even the bizarre story of the Skinwalker Ranch. There are conspiracy books about 9/11 and the Kennedys, and nothing seems off limits in the age of post X-Files awareness.
But for some reason, here we are thirty years after our experience in September 1989, and no one but myself has ever even mentioned it, or spoken a single word about it in acknowledgment.
To me, that means that - for some people - it is imperative that information about the experience be kept secret even to this day. I ask myself, why this experience over all others?
And I have my theories, but I still don't know the actual answer.
That is why I am asking for your help. I know this story has frightened a lot of people, not least your sister. But it doesn't have to be frightening if we bring it out into the open. It is only the prolonged secrecy that makes it worse and exaggerates the fear people have. If you signed an oath, and you feel you must abide by it even thirty years later, I respect that. However, there might still be something you could tell me that would be of help. I myself signed an oath, as I noted, but I have never respected it because I didn't remember signing it until 2015. My memory of the entire twelve day event was deliberately taken away from me by induced hypnotic amnesia, and I have so little respect for anyone who would do that do a person - who would take away a person's memory without their consent - that the oath I signed means nothing to me.
My life was basically stolen away by the people who induced my amnesia, and so I write what I want when I want to. I have talked about our experiences whenever I have felt like it, to no consequence thus far. Believe it or not, I hold no grudges, and even like to think of the CIA as my friends.
All of this is to say, Ann, that - in my opinion - if you decided to talk to me, I am certain that no one would care, not at this late date. That goes for Lillian, too. The men who oversaw the events would all be in their mid-70s now. Some would be deceased. So if you were to write me a simple letter, I know no one would object.
Ann, I want to thank you for reading this very lengthy letter, and for even opening it, considering that you saw my name on the envelope. I want to reassure you once again that this will be the only time you will hear from me, unless you decide to respond, and even then I will always be cordial and polite in any further communication.
Peace be with you and your family, and with your sister always.
Adam
And so, Ann, what I want to ask you is this - would you consider talking to me about what you remember from that night? It wouldn't have to be in person, or even over the phone, though those would be the best ways. But if you aren't comfortable with direct communication, you could write me a letter similar to the one I've written you. You could even send it by email. I know how difficult this subject is, believe me, and I am only asking you because I have no one else to turn to. For over twenty years I have tried to get answers about what happened to me between the dates of September 1 and September 12, 1989, but my queries have been met with a wall of silence. I have tried and tried and tried, but not only has no one ever been willing to talk to me, no one including those I know were present has ever even acknowledged that something out of the ordinary happened to all of us.
I know you are aware of my attempts to contact your sister in the mid-90s. That was a fiasco of my own making. I've apologized for it, and paid for it, and though I do not feel I deserved the response that was meted out to me, I've accepted responsibility for my actions at that time. I was only wanting to know what it was that I was remembering. That was why I tried so relentlessly to get Lillian to talk to me in 1995. My memories were just then coming back to me in force, but they were fragmented and I couldn't make sense of them. I knew something enormous had happened, but I didn't know what. In short, I was confused. When my life became stable, I used to send your sister a Christmas card every year, from about 1999 until 2015. I stopped after that year because I discovered on Facebook that she was now married. But in my Christmas cards and letters, I would very often allude to 1989, not in a blunt way but just by making suggestions that, in my opinion, it was very important that we not forget the truth of what happened to us, and that it was equally important that we tell that truth.
I sent Lillian a Christmas card for about 15 years in a row, give or take, but she never responded. I knew how incredibly difficult it would have been for her to gather the courage to talk to me, but I always hoped that one day it might happen. Once I saw that she was married, I stopped writing, and while I haven't given up hope that Lilly may one day talk about what she knows, I no longer harbor any expectations. As for her participation in the September 1989 event, I did not see her after she was placed in the back of an ambulance in the parking lot of Northridge Hospital, after she was attacked by Howard Schaller on the first night of September 1. I do have a vague memory of seeing her at the Wilbur Wash event, which took place many days later, but at the current time I cannot be certain of it's veracity. My guess is that she knows a lot more about what happened than I do, and while I feel that her continued silence is profoundly wrong for a number of reasons, I have also considered the possibility that, like me, she may have signed a non-disclosure oath all those years ago, but unlike me, she may have not had amnesia and was therefore aware of the gravity of her oath all along.
I have also considered, Ann, that over the years she may have been intimidated into silence by one faction or another.
Please know - and I hope Lillian knows - that I have never blamed her for what happened. Without going into a long explanation, it is sufficient to say that whatever the mystery behind the overall event, it involved a whole lot more than a domestic dispute in a Reseda apartment. My opinion of Lilly has never changed, nor have my feelings toward her.
But Ann, I also need to know what happened to me, and I will interject once again to say that it didn't just happen to me, but to all of us who were present. But speaking for myself, I can only say that it has been monumentally hard for me, not to know the entirety of the event, and most importantly why it happened. I have struggled mightily for all these years, hoping to recover another sliver of memory, but the stream more or less dried up around 2008, excepting the handful of revelations I have mentioned that returned to me since then.
The truth is that I live with this every day of my life, and every day I wonder what it was all about. This can be very debilitating at times, because it never goes away. It's there when I wake up in the morning, and it's there when I go to sleep at night. I cannot pretend it didn't happen, as certain friends and family members do even though they know better. I know it happened and so do they, and for that matter so does Lillian and so do you, I am sure.
So I am asking, very simply, if you will talk to me. If you do not wish to, that is fine, I understand and I will not bother you again. But if you decide that you are willing to write to me, in addition to asking for your memories of that night and the next day (in their entirety) I'd also like to ask you the following questions. I will ask them in the order of the incidents they correspond to :
1) Do you know why that "security thug" showed up at the door to Terry's apartment? I realize you wouldn't have direct knowledge as you weren't involved in any of the proceedings prior to arriving after the fact, but I ask because of the possibility that this information might have been told to you by someone else.
2) Do you have any idea why Mary Sean Young was present? I know that, on the surface, it sounds absurd for me to say that she was there, and that we rode in her car. But we did. And she was there. I have no idea why she was there, but I saw her with my own eyes, and she also has an unmistakable voice. I was, and still am, a fan of hers. Lillian and I saw her in several movies. After I joined Facebook in 2008, I saw that Mary was also a member and I sent her a friend request, which she accepted. At around the same time, give or take a year, I had obtained her email address (I don't recall how), and I sent her an email with a synopsis of her participation in the events on the night of September 1st, 1989. I was polite, in no way accusatory, and I gave a thorough explanation, but I assured her I knew she was there and that she had driven me to the hospital that night, along with others, meaning you, Ann, and Lys. To my surprise, Mary emailed me back. She stated that she "didn't think it was her", and that "people often mistake me for someone else". She was very nice in her reply, wished me well in my quest, but basically disavowed her presence on that night.
Mary is an interesting person, a "conspiracy theorist" in her own right, and I do not mean that in a derogatory way. As I mentioned, her Hollywood career began it's downward slide after 1989, and she had been a star on the rise prior to that. Nowdays, she rails on Twitter in support of Donald Trump. In Mary's defense, regarding her denial of having been at Concord Square, I should mention that I have observed the same honest seeming "denial phenomenon" in other people who I know for a fact were present at one or more of the events in the twelve day sequence. I have said to others, including those close to me : "I know you were there (at such and such a location), and there is no doubt about it", and in certain cases I have gotten an honestly baffled response, where I do not think the person is lying to me but rather is not remembering the experience. But that happened to me, too. I remembered none of my experience for four years, so I suppose it's possible that others to this day do not remember, or remember in only a vague way that is frightening for them to think about. In Mary's case, because she is a bit of a strange person, I am not sure what to make of her denial.
I only know for certain that she was there. What's more, she wasn't the only well-known person who would become a participant as the days went on. So, Ann, I am asking you if you know why she was there. She appeared on the scene very quickly, within an hour of the arrival of the paramedics, and likely sooner. Someone must have called her, though I can't imagine it was anyone I know.
In any event, if you have any information about Mary's presence that night, I would be grateful if you could relate it to me. Thanks, Ann.
3) Do you know why Howard Schaller was waiting for us at Northridge Hospital? I have given you the only possibility I have been able to deduce, which involved a drug deal that went bad and included your sister. To repeat, she would have had no way of knowing or ever meeting Howard if not for my late friend Dave S., so it is likely my conclusion about a drug deal is on the mark. However, I know nothing about the specifics of this arrangement, or how it came about. All I know is that I was utterly shocked to see Howard suddenly attacking our car, totally out of the blue, and then I was doubly shocked to see that Lillian was his target. Because she is your sister, I can understand if you don't wish to answer this question. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you did. I repeat that it is very hard for me to wonder what happened that night, and why.
4) Do you know, Ann, why Federal agents were involved? In other words, do you know why a domestic argument between three people, which should have brought a police response, was instead responded to by a Federal agency, and with such urgency that a helicopter was landing in the street adjacent to Northridge Hospital within 30 to 45 minutes of the violence we experienced in the parking lot? There is something I have always wondered, Ann, about the events of that first night and consequently the overall twelve day experience.
I have asked myself : "What if I had not gone down to Concord Square that night, but instead stayed home. Would a similar situation have eventually presented itself (i.e. was something building up), or did I trigger the reactions of everyone involved by showing up and forcing a confrontation"? What I am asking has to do with not only the presence of the Federal agents but the swiftness of their response, which suggests to me that someone was under surveillance. I have even considered the possibility that Lillian was part of a sting operation, which once again seems absurd on the surface, but something has to account for the response of a Federal agency and for the fact that Howard Schaller knew who Lilly was.
Were agents keeping an eye on the situation prior to the night of September 1st? Or did they respond suddenly to an emergency, brought about by the unexpected confrontation in Terry's apartment, and the fact that an "apple cart" of some sort had been upset?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions, Ann, but perhaps you do. At any rate, after all these years I finally decided to go directly to who I thought might be the source. In 2017, I filed an FOIA and Privacy Act request with the CIA, asking for any and all documents pertaining to my name. I listed the specifics of the situation in brief form. And I got back what is known as a "Glomar" response, in which the CIA told me they can "neither confirm nor deny" that "there is an association" between myself and the Agency. The letter they sent me is written in legalese, and so it must be parsed several times in order to glean what they are getting at. But they list the official reasons why my request for information about myself was denied, and - in short - it was denied because, though they can't confirm or deny it, the information is classified and is protected by an ordinance that prohibits the release of National Security information.
I have read over my letter from the CIA again and again, and also a second letter I got from them in response to my letter of appeal regarding their denial, and I have come to the conclusion that we were involved in a highly classified National Security event.
I have been writing about 1989 for many years, Ann, and I often refer to the twelve day experience as "The Biggest Secret In America". I say that because it has never even been acknowledged. I mean, Roswell was acknowledged and is now part of UFO folklore. Everybody has heard of Area 51, and even the bizarre story of the Skinwalker Ranch. There are conspiracy books about 9/11 and the Kennedys, and nothing seems off limits in the age of post X-Files awareness.
But for some reason, here we are thirty years after our experience in September 1989, and no one but myself has ever even mentioned it, or spoken a single word about it in acknowledgment.
To me, that means that - for some people - it is imperative that information about the experience be kept secret even to this day. I ask myself, why this experience over all others?
And I have my theories, but I still don't know the actual answer.
That is why I am asking for your help. I know this story has frightened a lot of people, not least your sister. But it doesn't have to be frightening if we bring it out into the open. It is only the prolonged secrecy that makes it worse and exaggerates the fear people have. If you signed an oath, and you feel you must abide by it even thirty years later, I respect that. However, there might still be something you could tell me that would be of help. I myself signed an oath, as I noted, but I have never respected it because I didn't remember signing it until 2015. My memory of the entire twelve day event was deliberately taken away from me by induced hypnotic amnesia, and I have so little respect for anyone who would do that do a person - who would take away a person's memory without their consent - that the oath I signed means nothing to me.
My life was basically stolen away by the people who induced my amnesia, and so I write what I want when I want to. I have talked about our experiences whenever I have felt like it, to no consequence thus far. Believe it or not, I hold no grudges, and even like to think of the CIA as my friends.
All of this is to say, Ann, that - in my opinion - if you decided to talk to me, I am certain that no one would care, not at this late date. That goes for Lillian, too. The men who oversaw the events would all be in their mid-70s now. Some would be deceased. So if you were to write me a simple letter, I know no one would object.
Ann, I want to thank you for reading this very lengthy letter, and for even opening it, considering that you saw my name on the envelope. I want to reassure you once again that this will be the only time you will hear from me, unless you decide to respond, and even then I will always be cordial and polite in any further communication.
Peace be with you and your family, and with your sister always.
Adam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)