The Year In Review in Movies, Part One + Elizabeth

 Let's round up some of our favorite movies and/or overall cinematic experiences from 2020, and do a Year In Review. Today I was thinking of Lupe Velez. Do you remember her? We binged-watched her "Mexican Spitfire" series way back in January. Given all that's happened since then, it seems like five years ago rather than one, but Lupe was quite a discovery, a great comedienne with a volatile yet hilarious onscreen persona. I remarked at the time that she seemed to be a forerunner of Lucille Ball, and once I watched her in the original "Mexican Spitfire", I needed to see more, and ended up ordering all the sequels from the Libe. 

This was in the first week of January if I remember correctly, and Lupe Velez helped get me through a very difficult time, because Pearl was in the hospital then and we weren't sure she was going to make it. But she did and was back home a week later, and I will always remember the Mexican Spitfire films because they lifted me up during that time, and Lupe Velez, in hindsight, represented Pearl's fighting spirit. Nobody can tell me that actors are just "entertainers". I get mad when I hear that, because movies are human stories and the actors are portraying all of us. And even if they are "just entertainers", what could be more noble than to bring some laughs or some dramatic diversion to people, to take them away from their troubles? 

We lost Neil Peart the same week. It was a rough start to the year. Then Kobe Bryant was killed two weeks later, and two months after that the pandemic hit and the year melted down completely. In retrospect, Pearl was fortunate to get sick when she did, because as bad as her illness was, she might not have made it out of the hospital had she needed treatment just a few weeks later, when covid hit full force in March. In January, it was still just a news item of infected people on an ocean liner.

So we were very fortunate.

Sometime around April I was forced to switch over to Youtube as my main source for movies, due to the closure of the library. Once upon a time I swore I'd never watch a movie on a computer, but I had to adapt, and as things turned out it wasn't too bad for watching old public domain pictures, so we ended up watching a ton of them. We went on extended runs of sci-fi and horror cheapies, clicking on anything we could find, and in the process we discovered Roger Corman, the director I'd once thought of as The Worst Filmmaker of All Time.

Boy was I wrong, and as we screened Corman Classics like "A Bucket of Blood", "It Conquered The World" and "The Undead" it turned out that Ol' Rog was in fact an excellent filmmaker, with an original style, who began his career with witty, low budget horror and sci-fi flicks, and graduated in the early 1960s to full-scale productions filmed in Technicolor, such as "The Tomb of Ligeia" and "Premature Burial". Those two were part of his Edgar Allen Poe series, which he made with Vincent Price. I'd guess we saw about a dozen Roger Corman movies in 2020, and it's ironic that my opinion of "the world's worst director" did a complete 180 in the worst year of our lifetime. 

So, our two major discoveries of the year were a megatalented Latina comedienne, unjustly forgotten now (but a big enough star in her time to have a hit franchise), and Roger Corman, whose singular vision as a director, writer and producer defy the cliches ascribed to him. I fell prey to them myself, as noted, until I actually watched his movies. Most of them rock, some are exceptional, especially the ones written by Charles B. Griffith. ////

We also watched a ton of other horror and science fiction flicks on Youtube, including the classic "I Was A Teenage Werewolf" starring Michael Landon, and it's sequel "I Was A Teenage Frankenstein", which we liked even better.  

We went on a TV Movie binge for a few weeks, and re-watched "Night Terror" - the ultra suspenseful chase movie staring Valerie Harper and Richard Romanus, that first aired as a Movie of the Week in 1977. It scared me so bad when I was 17 that I'd been looking for it on Youtube for years. I finally found it in 2020 and it holds up just as well 43 years later. I also found another TV Movie I'd been seeking for ages, "The Neon Ceiling" starring Lee Grant and Gig Young. This one was broadcast way back in 1971. I saw it as an eleven year old, and never forgot it's emotionally charged central theme of adult dysfunction. The script is too complex to unpack tonight, but it's quite simply one of the top TV Movies ever made, and it left it's mark. Many folks besides me have remarked on it's staying power, and in watching it all these years later, it is Gig Young's performance that is indelible, as the owner of a diner in the Mojave desert who has run away from his past. ////

Well, the hour is late, and it is not possible to cover an entire "best of" in one night, but there's a few for ya.

Elizabeth, I see you have a new camera lens. You also posted a portrait from five years ago, of one of your models pictured against a snowy backdrop. That is a great shot, and a strong contrast of colors between the girl's red coat and black hair. So maybe you are getting ready to do some more fashion photography? That's my guess, but I'm super glad in any case, because I always love to know that you are "in action", in whatever artistic form. And it's been a while since you've had the chance to do a photo shoot, so I'm sure you are raring to go.

Post 'em when you've shot 'em, as always.  :):)

That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. Tons of love.

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

   

"Red Light" starring George Raft and Virginia Mayo + The Trouble With Harry Morgan and Raymond Burr

 Years before he was Jack Webb's slightly sardonic sidekick on "Dragnet", Harry Morgan had a solid film career, playing bad guys for the most part in various noirs and dramas. A while back I remarked on Morgan's presence in films of that time (late 40s to mid-50s), saying that if you saw his name in the credits, you knew there was gonna be trouble. As mild as he was on "Dragnet", Harry Morgan specialised in playing troublemakers in his younger days. In tonight's movie, "Red Light"(1949), starring George Raft and Virginia Mayo, he plays an ex-con just out of San Quentin. But as hardened as Morgan is, he pales in viciousness to his cell mate Raymond Burr. As bad as Morgan's characters were in films of the era, Burr's were even worse. In total contrast to his most famous role (once again on TV) as the righteous lawyer "Perry Mason", Burr had a steady career in movies prior to working in television. And if you think Harry Morgan was trouble, in the various noirs he made, Raymond Burr was downright psycho in his. Not explosively psycho like a Richard Widmark, but cold blooded and capable of anything.

Put Harry Morgan and Raymond Burr in the same cell in San Quentin, and you've got a big time recipe for revenge. Here's the deal - George Raft owns a trucking company in San Francisco. Burr had been his accountant, but embezzled a truckload of money (pun intended), so Raft had him sent to prison. As the movie opens, he's talking to his cellmate Morgan, who's due to be released that day. Burr wants payback for being sent to the slammer, so he decides to take it out on Raft by going after Raft's brother, an Army Chaplain who's been in the news for his five year stint in the Pacific Theater, ministering to front line Marines. The newspaper says the chaplain has returned home. Burr reads the headline, and offers Harry Morgan part of the money he stole if Morgan will kill the chaplain - Raft's brother - when he gets out of The Joint.

Do you think Harry Morgan agrees? Of course he does! He would not have been hired for the role had he declined. As an aside, consider an analogy to another actor, say......Elijah Cook Jr. You'd know him if you saw him. In his case, he always played either A Chiseler or A Squealer, so if you saw his name in the credits, you knew he was gonna rat someone out, but only after trying to Chisel the coppers first. So it's the same deal with Harry Morgan. In film noirs (and even some regular dramas), he was incapable of Not Doing Bad.

I mean, look......when you've got a movie where George Raft is the good guy, you know that, in Morgan and Raymond Burr, you've got some seriously bad hombres.

So, briefly - and I'll get to the point now - the Chaplain does get killed, by Morgan, but it happens in a darkened hotel room, so it's not a thousand percent clear who did it. George Raft arrives, discovers his brother near death, and asks him to name the culprit. 

The brother's last words are, "It's......written in the Bible, Johnny".

This leads Raft on a search for the Gideon's Bible that was taken out of his brother's room on the night of the murder, because he assumes that the name of the killer in written inside.

Raft collars a hotel bellhop for information, and discovers that Virginia Mayo was the next person to rent the room where the chaplain died. After giving her the strong arm, Raft discovers she had nothing to do with it, and pays her to assist him in his search for the killer, which will take them to different cities including Reno, Nevada. The police, headed up by our pal Barton MacLane, will trail them throughout. MacLane wants Raft to leave it alone, and "let us handle it". And this brings us to an interesting religious subcontext, which is brought to the forefront by film's end. Keeping in mind that his brother is a chaplain, and that Raft's character is a Catholic himself (who donates to his church), Raft has to come to the realisation that it is not for him to decide the fate of the killers. The cops have already tried persuading him of this, but he's loaded with money and goes his own way. The theme continues as he tries to locate the missing bible, and the movie takes on a profound spiritual turn involving some very unique characters, before resuming the original plot and concluding to a grim, hard boiled finish.

All in all, a very good one for a medium budget crime flick. Call it a mix of traditional noir with a touch of William Dieterle thrown in on the spiritual part. "Red Light" was directed by Roy Del Ruth, whom I think we've seen at the helm before, in a picture or two. He's got a memorable name, but I'll have to look him up to be sure. ////

Meanwhile, tonight is my last night at home until mid-January. Tomorrow morn I will be back at Pearl's for my next cycle, and I shall write to you from there. This evening I finally finished a book I have been working on all year, Book One of R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz' "The Temple of Man", a philosophical study of the architecture of the temple of Luxor in Egypt as it relates to something called the anthropocosmos of the Universe. I obtained this book, which comprises two volumes, after reading one of Dr. Joseph Farrell's far more accessible works, probably "Grid of the Gods". Anyway, in that book Dr. Joe mentioned Schwaller, so I thought I'd better read him too. Schwaller's book was expensive, but I bought it and started in.........

It turned out to be The Most Obtuse Book Ever Written, at least that I've read, and I'm not counting hard-to-understand mathematical tomes and things like that, I'm taking about nearly impenetrable obtuseness.

But I finished it, Book One at least. Took me a whole year, but I did it, in between a lot of other books, and I've still got Book Two to go. Give Schwaller a shot, if you are so inclined. What isn't clear in his verbiage, you will absorb by osmosis. ////

See you tomorrow, from Pearl's. Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox :):)

Merry Christmas Once Again, and a film : "I'll Be Seeing You"

I hope you had a nice Christmas Day, despite the lack of traditional celebrations this year. I went up to Aliso this afternoon for a hike, and it was heartening to exchange "Merry Christmas" greetings with others on the trail. The day was absolutely stunning, one of those 75 degree  "blue sky and golden sunshine" Christmas days that we get about once or thrice a decade. Because of that, I was compelled to post the David Lynch Weather Report on Facebook. A semi-Summery day may not seem all that Christmassy to many folks, but here in the Valley it's kind of nice, because we never get snow anyway, and a blue sky is better than an overcast one, or a lot of howling wind.

When I left Aliso it was just getting dark, so I drove a few blocks over to Encino Avenue, to see the Granada Hills version of Candy Cane Lane. The folks up there go all out with their Christmas lights, and there's no traffic jam as with the Woodland Hills original. It felt good to keep some traditions going, even if all by myself. You may have been in the same boat.

This evening, I continued with "Little Dorrit", the Dickens mini-series I've been watching, which gets my highest recommendation. I also watched a movie : "I'll Be Seeing You"(1944), starring Joseph Cotten, Ginger Rogers and Shirley Temple. It qualifies as a Christmas Movie, being that it takes place over the holiday, and there are scenes of family Christmas and a New Year's Eve party. But it's a different kind of Christmas Classic because it deals with people who are emotionally fragile. Joe Cotten is a Purple Heart recipient whose battle experience has caused a nervous breakdown. Ginger is a young woman on a ten day holiday furlough from prison, where she was sent on a charge of manslaughter for killing a man who tried to rape her. Yeah, it's strong stuff, but the movie is directed by William Dieterle, another filmmaker who should be considered with the best of all time. He specialised in a light, almost mystical touch, working with heavy emotional subjects. One of his greatest films is "Portrait of Jenny", a ghostly tale of reincarnated love, but he has many more excellent pictures under his belt, and he's the perfect director to tackle this story of two wounded people who are destined to come together. Dieterle created Hollywood Magic at it's best.

In short, Joe and Ginger meet on a train. He's just out of an Army psych hospital, she's on her furlough. After getting to know each other, Joe cooks up an excuse to get off at her station. Soon, he meets her family and is invited for Christmas dinner. Little by little we learn about Joe's journey from the South Pacific to the psych ward. In town, and at holiday parties, the civilian folks want to treat him as a war hero, but it's all a cliche. They have no idea of the horrors of war. Joe mostly humors them, because to open up about his actual combat experience would be to tear open his mental wounds, and he won't do that.

But Ginger understands, because she's a victim of terrible violence herself. And, she was unjustly convicted of manslaughter, for defending herself against a rapist. This is not a movie about plot, but such as it is, it develops that we learn about Joe's history, but Ginger's is kept secret. She doesn't want him to know she's a prisoner on leave for the holidays, because now she's in love with him and fears she will lose him if he finds out.

Most of the scenes are small vignettes involving only a handful of characters, consisting of the members of Ginger's family. Shirley Temple has a substantial role as her 17 year old niece, who's as sure of herself and as naive as only a teenager can be. Shirley is soldier-crazy and at first fixes on Joseph Cotten, a little jealous of his attention to her aunt Ginger. But this angle is not pursued, because jealousy and conflict are not the point of the story. Healing is. And trust, love and vulnerability. Shirley will play a consequential role in the climax of the film, where she learns - as all teenagers do - what it means to be an adult, and that adults have real emotions, too, based on experience.

You could make a movie like this nowdays, and I'm sure they do, but it wouldn't have what William Dieterle and his actors bring to the table. You have to want to go back in time, for a dose of 1940s War Years sentimentality, to watch a movie like this, but if you do, you'll understand why Hollywood Magic was needed then, during the most horrible stretch in man's history. I always remind you (and sorry to do so but it's important) that the deadliest period in the history of mankind occurred only 80 years ago, or just a "couple of grandpas" ago, as I like to put it.

So that's why they poured on the sentimentality, and the magic, in the films of that era. We in our time cannot imagine the horror, and I suppose for many citizens here at home, even then, it was just news in a newspaper. But for millions of soldiers and their families, it was reality.

Hollywood put a gloss over it, but in general they got the feeling right in almost every movie from that era, and especially the ones with a Christmas theme, because of the promise of Peace on Earth. ///

Last night on Christmas Eve, I watched a more traditional holiday picture, the classic "White Christmas" starring Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney and Vera Ellen. That one I'm sure you know, it's one of the greatest musicals ever made, in addition to being a Christmas Classic, so I'll leave it at that, except to say that the musical set pieces are alone worth the price of admission.

That's all I know for the moment. To quote Tiny Tim, "God Bless Us, Everyone". Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.  :):)

Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

A Double Dose of Dickens : "LIttle Dorrit" and "Oliver Twist"

Tonight I've got a Double Dose of Dickens for you. It wouldn't be Christmas without ol' C.D., at least not in my world, and this year - just when I thought I'd exhausted the supply of Dickens/BBC miniseries - I found another one : "Little Dorrit", which I ordered from the Libe and began watching two days ago. There are a couple dozen characters in this one (at least), but the main story revolves around a man named "Mr. Dorrit", who's been locked up in a debtor's prison for many years. He's looked after by his youngest daughter Amy, who visits him every day. She is the "Little Dorrit" of the title. A third main character, "Mr. Clennam", has just returned to London after spending time in China. He's the son of an upper middle class woman whose wealth, and consequently her status, has waned. She still acts as if she's a member of high society, but in truth her house is now run down and she's confined to a wheelchair. Her bitterness is clear for all to see, but because this is Dickens, the great social commentator, her afflictions - physical, emotional and financial - are interpreted as a result of a terrible secret she has kept for all her adult life. The secret has ruined her, but now her son is back, and he aims to find out what that secret is. As events progress, one thing is certain - it has to do with the Dorrit family.

The three leads are played by the legendary Tom Courtenay ("Mr. Dorrit"), Claire Foy ("Amy Dorrit") and Matthew MacFayden ("Mr. Clennam"). There are many other characters who play important parts in the story, and there are many other threads to the plot, but the main thing is that, as you watch them, you can't fail to be impressed by the ability of all the actors  to re-create the personalities of people from another time. English actors, especially ones who are chosen for productions such as this, come from a highly trained background, and as you watch them inhabit their roles, you notice every nuance in their performances, which - because the context is Victorian England - means that everything is broken down into class status. A butler is resentful yet still polite (and misogynistic), a young girl is dutiful to a fault, a rich property owner is humble and kind on the outside, ruthless behind closed doors. But that's just the characters themselves. Watch an actor like Tom Courtenay bring "Mr. Dorrit" to life, and you'll agree that the English are a breed apart when it comes to period acting.

In short, though I'm only a third of the way through "Little Dorrit", it gets my highest recommendation. ///

My movie for this evening was "Oliver Twist"(1948), adapted from one of Dickens' most famous novels by David Lean, who also directed. I'm sure you know the story of Oliver, so I'll just run down the basics. He's an orphan boy, born in a workhouse to an indigent mother who dies shortly after his birth. Because he proves to be rebellious, he is sold as a child to a mortician, for whom he is put to work. He escapes from there and makes his way to London, all of nine years old, and ends up as part of a gang of pickpockets, run by the notorious Fagin, a famous Dickensian crook. As always in a Dickens plot, there is a secret involved, this time about Oliver's lineage.

In 1968, there was a musical version of this story that was a huge hit. Called "Oliver!", it was nominated for several Oscars, including one for young Jack Wild, who was briefly famous for playing "The Artful Dodger". I saw that movie in the theater, probably with my parents or sisters, but I'd never seen this version until tonight. Lean films it in grim black and white, almost like a noir with an Expressionistic look. As with "Little Dorrit", the hardscrabble realities, and cruelties, of life in 19th century England are laid bare. 

If you only know this story from the more raucous 1968 production, make sure and see this earlier version too. "Oliver!" the musical was a memorable hit from the '60s, with great songs like "Consider Yourself", but David Lean's original was probably closer to what Dickens intended, starkly brutal and almost devoid of joy..........(almost).  //// 

Tomorrow is Christmas Eve, so I want to wish you a Merry Christmas in advance. I will try to write again tomorrow night, but just in case, I hope you have a wonderful Christmas in spite of the pandemic and all we've had to deal with this year. Get in your car tomorrow night and go see some Christmas Lights. Sing some carols, even if just to yourself. Man - for me, this is the first year since 2013 when I will not be singing with our church choir on The Night Before Christmas. I'm sure you know the story of how I came to be in the choir, because of being Pearl's caregiver, but it is one of those things where "if you ever told me I'd be singing in a choir I'd have said"....etc., etc. But then there I was, singing hymns and anthems every Sunday morning, from November 2014 until March 2020. And last Christmas Eve, I got to sing solo tenor on John Rutter's "Christmas Lullaby". It was the highlight of my time with the choir, and I'm sure gonna miss not singing with those guys tomorrow night.....

But we're all still here, so say a prayer and be sure to listen to "Nine Lessons and Carols" tomorrow morning at 7am PST on KUSC 95.5 FM (or whatever internet connection you can find). The "Nine Lessons" are a Christmas Eve tradition from King's College in England since 1918, and even if you wake up too late you can still find it on Google, I'm sure.

That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. Tons and tons of love.

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)   

"The Reckless Moment" directed by Max Ophuls and starring Joan Bennett and James Mason

Keep the Christmas Noirs coming! Tonight I uncovered another gem, "The Reckless Moment"(1949), directed by none other than Max Ophuls, and starring Joan Bennett and James Mason. Please remember the importance of correct pronunciation where his name is concerned. It must be pronounced as if he were saying it himself, in that perfect London accent, slightly drawn out. To wit : "Chames May-son". Practice it a few times til you have it down, it's not too difficult nor too much to ask, I don't think.  

At any rate, Bennett plays "Lucia Harper", the upper middle class wife of an architect, living with their children on Balboa Island off the coast of Newport Beach. I must cut in to say that Balboa is a cool location. I've never seen it used before in a movie, but I mention it because Dad used to take us there in the late 60s, to walk along the small midway and eat chocolate covered frozen bananas from the ice cream stand. It had a "funky little beach town" atmosphere.

The movie takes place in the residential sector of the island, a part I never saw. Lucia and her family live near the cliffs in a big ol' Cape Cod, complete with boat house. She's a Supermom, and has to be because her husband is often away, due to the nature of his job. She has things mostly under control, with the help of her housekeeper Sybil (Frances E. Williams), but her rebellious teenage daughter is seeing a shady character twice her age. He's purportedly an art dealer; that's the real attraction. The daughter's an artist, the man has promised to sell her paintings. Really though, he's just a lowlife who wants to take advantage, and Joan Bennett knows it. As the movie opens, she drives to Los Angeles where he lives, to demand that he leave her daughter alone. He agrees to do so, if she will pay him a sum of money.

Joan refuses, telling him that her daughter will dump him anyway, once she knows he's put a price on their relationship. 

The gambit works. When the dealer drives down to visit Miss Brooks on the sly, she confronts him about his bid to cash in. Caught, he admits it, then begins to laugh. "Of course I would've taken the money! It's not like your mother can't afford it"! The seventeen year old is now humiliated and begins to act out. She hits the man. He tries to restrain her and ends up falling over the railing of the home's upper deck. He is impaled by a small anchor lying below on the sand, and Miss Brooks runs off into the night, in shock at the terrible turn of events.

The next morning, her Mom spots the body lying on the beach. She has a good idea what's happened, and makes an on-the-spot decision to protect her daughter. Using a motorboat, she hauls the dead art dealer out to sea, and dumps him overboard. Unfortunately, he washes up a day or two later, and the local paper is trumpeting the headlines: "Los Angeles Art Dealer Murdered! Body Found On Beach"!

The good news is that the police are clueless as to who did it. This is little Balboa Island, fifty miles south of L.A. Who would know the victim here? They have no suspects. Only Joan Bennett and her daughter know what happened, and Joan is a Mama Lion.

But..........then one day Chames Mason shows up at their door. He's a professional blackmailer, and somehow he's gotten hold of a stack of love letters the young Miss Brooks had written to the dead man. He wants Five Gees to relinquish them to Mom Bennett, who has no way of getting the cash without alerting her husband, who's in Berlin on business. She tries to placate Mason, who just becomes more insistent, telling her that if she doesn't come up with the money, she'll have to deal with his blackmail partner, who "doesn't play around".

It's a brutal setup. Bennett is tied in a knot between wanting to protect her daughter and a lack of funds to pay the blackmailers.

But then something happens, slowly over the course of her dealings with Mason. As you know, he is an actor of Great Earnestness. Watch him as an IRA hoodlum on the run in "Odd Man Out". Even when he plays a Bad Guy, as he does there - and in this film too - he does so with the Utmost Regret in his heart. James Mason in all honesty was one of the very greatest English actors who ever lived, but his specialty was in drawing out the deep sincerity of his characters. He always went below the surface, and because this is a Max Ophuls movie, he will be given the chance to redeem himself. Ophuls explored the tragic consequences of deceit in the materially well-off. Once again, I suggest watching "The Earrings of Madame De..", which I mentioned recently. He focuses usually on women caught in a web not entirely of their own making. But here, he has James Mason as a blackmailer who takes an Earnest Turn of Heart.

I'll tell you no more, the hour is very late, and you must see it for yourself. Max Ophuls is an overlooked director who should be ranked with the greats, at least in the limited sense of his artistic focus, on a single social strata, that of the befallen woman of wealth.

For me, beyond the context of his themes, I think of him as one of the most stylish directors of all time. His art direction and settings are always impeccable, and his photography is as good as it gets, in the realm of Hollywood Craftsmanship. Discover his movies and give him a shot. And oh yes...."The Reckless Moment" can be considered a Christmas Noir because the crime takes place during the Holiday Season, and Joan Bennett manages to complete her shopping before December 25th. The presents are all under the tree at the end. ////

That's all for tonight. Happy Winter Solstice! Did you see the Christmas Star this evening? 

Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

"Christmas Holiday", a psyched-out melodrama that has little to do with Christmas

Tonight I watched "Chrisrmas Holiday"(1944), another one of the Yuletide-themed noirs we discovered in yesterday's Google search. Unlike "Mr. Soft Touch", however, this one was Christmas in name only; there were no holiday touches save for one scene, but it was still a good movie.

As it opens, a G.I. named "Lt. Mason" (Dean Harens) is at his Army barracks, getting ready to go on leave. He's set to fly to San Francisco that night, to marry his girlfriend. The date is December 24th. Just before he's due at the airport, he's handed a telegram. It's a "Dear John" message from his girl, informing him that she went and married someone else. He's crushed, but decides to catch his plane anyhow, if for no other reason than to take some R&R and try to collect his thoughts in another city.

But the flight encounters stormy weather and is diverted to New Orleans. The airline arranges for hotel rooms for all the passengers until the trip can be completed. At the hotel bar, Mason meets a newspaper reporter (one of those again) who talks him into going to a Nawlins nightclub to check out the action. Figuring it might help to lift his depression, the Lieutenant agrees. There, he is introduced to "Jackie" (Deanna Durbin), the singer in the club who is a friend of the reporter. Mason is indifferent to her at first, still preoccupied with being dumped on Christmas Eve. But when he decides to leave, to attend Midnight Mass at a nearby church, Jackie begs to go with him. So strong is her desire, he can't say no, and he wouldn't have anyway. He's a gentleman, she's a nice gal behind the nightclub veneer, and they're both nursing a world of hurt. Mason finds this out about Jackie when, during the Mass, she breaks down and can't stop crying.

I must break in myself here, to note that the church scene was filmed at St. Vibiana's in Downtown Los Angeles. It was formerly the Cathedral of Los Angeles before it was badly damaged in the Northridge earthquake. After that, it was closed and the new Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels was built in 2002. But my Mom used to mention St. Vibiana's quite often. I never got the chance to see it, but from the Midnight Mass scene in this movie, you can tell it was quite grand and beautiful. I think it still stands (I'll have to check) and it may now be a historical landmark. But I don't think it's still in use for regular services, and here, it's supposed to be a church in New Orleans.

But back to the story, when Jackie loses it as the choir sings "Adeste Fideles", Lt. Mason escorts her back to his hotel to get her bearings. She apologises for the outburst, then begins to tell him her life story. From here we head into flashback mode, where we will remain for most of the picture.

Ahh, "Jackie" was not always Jackie. Her real name is Abigail, and once upon a time she was married to the scion of a wealthy New Orleans family. The only problem is that he is in prison now, for murder. That is why she broke down in church. Her husband is in there for life, and it turns out he's a psychopath, controlled by a domineering mother. The extent of his pathology is only hinted at, but if you're paying attention it's clear that he's more than a little weird, and so is his mama. This is all told in flashback, and the husband is played by none other than Gene Kelly, who's not just hoofing it this time (in addition to his dancing, he was a good actor). We can see he's got a gambling problem, he's killed a bookie, but his Mom is covering up for him to protect the family name, or what's left of it. In truth, it's a crumbling empire, and the dialogue hints at some creepy stuff going on behind the wrought iron rails of the ancestral manse.

This is one Melodrama of a noir, and there's very little Christmas cheer involved. Besides the church scene, however, there is also another great location segment filmed at an old Los Angeles theater, one that - in the movie at least - doubles as a concert hall. In the scene, Gene Kelly and Deanna Durbin are watching a symphony orchestra play the overture from "Tristan und Isolde" by Wagner. I recognised the music and said "Wow" to myself, because at this point the pathos was being pushed through the roof.

This is the kind of movie that would've influenced David Lynch, and indeed, if you listen closely to the strains of "Tristan", you will hear a resemblance to the theme for "Twin Peaks", composed 140 years later by Angelo Badalamenti.

Above all, it's Durbin's story. In reality she's Abigail from Vermont, but to escape her rural upbringing she's turned herself into Jackie the Nightclub Singer, and as such, she can't tear herself away from Gene Kelly, this momma's boy who's now in Angola prison for life, because as crazy as he is, he's all that's keeping her from being ordinary. Man, this is some mixed up psychology.

Robert Siodmak directed, and gets a tremendous performance out of young Deanna Durbin, a Canadian singer/actress who is not well known now, but was a gigantic box office draw in the early 1940s.

All in all, a weird find, but a good one. The title has little to do with the film, but don't miss "Christmas Holiday", a tale of hopeless love.  ////

Hey, how 'bout that? I wrote a blog on two consecutive days. I know I used to always do that, but this year it became more difficult, not because of covid but just the demands of my job. However, maybe when I'm home I can try to do it again, or at least when my neighbors aren't blasting disco music twenty-four-seven. Today they weren't home. Thanks, God.

Well anyway, two blogs in a row, and another good movie. See you in the morning. Tons of love!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

"Mr. Soft Touch", a Christmas Noir starring Glenn Ford

How about a Christmas Noir? I actually Googled those terms, looking for a crime flick with some holiday spirit, and believe it or not there are a few. I guess it's not that unusual when you consider "Die Hard", but that's a modern movie and I guess I wasn't expecting to find anything similar from the old days. But I did, and the one I chose was called "Mr. Soft Touch"(1949), starring Glenn Ford as a nightclub owner who is on the run from the Mob. As the movie opens, he's in a car chase, hightailing it through the streets of San Francisco with four hoodlums hot on his tail. It seems he's just robbed his own club of a hundred grand in cash.

I'd better stop to explain: Ford is an ex-GI, perhaps an incongruity considering his line of work, but he's a patriotic guy and honest for the most part. He's tried to co-exist with the local mobsters, but while he was overseas, they moved in and took over his joint. He was left with no choice but to rob it, to get the money from the safe that is rightfully his. So yeah, in short, he's just robbed his own club, which has been taken over by the 'Frisco Mob, and now they're chasing him down.

He tries hiding out at the apartment of an old pal, but the hoods are on to that pad. So, Ford stages a ruse to get himself arrested, which will put him in jail where he knows he'll be safe, at least for the night. The date is December 23rd. In the morning, much to his surprise, he is bailed out by a social worker (Evelyn Keyes), who works at a home for the indigent. She scours the courthouse for cases such as Ford's, and thinks him to be a down-and-out vagrant who can be rehabilitated. She whisks him away to the Home, which also houses orphans, and suddenly we have our Christmas theme, and on Christmas Eve no less.

As noted earlier, Ford is basically a decent guy, so he starts using his recovered loot to buy things for the Home (bed sheets, towels, even a piano), but he has to do it all anonymously, lest Miss Keyes find out that he isn't a hobo but a man with dangerous connections. Making the situation more complex is a nosy gossip columnist (John Ireland) who also has one foot in the Mob's door. He wants to make a name for himself, either by nailing the mobsters or turning them on to Ford's hideout; he doesn't care which.

It sounds pretty hard boiled, but in truth it's played on a lighter level. The crime context is a framework for the social themes espoused by Keyes as the Home's chief administrator. She has a backstory of her own, which Ford works hard to get out of her before they succumb to the inevitable romance. Before that happens, there is a Christmas party to prepare for, with lots of classic Hollywood character-types taking part. The portrayal of a privately funded house of charity feels more Depression-era than late-40s (almost 1950), but it works better to have that throwback because it adds to the Christmas sentiment as only Hollywood can capture.

The crime theme will still be maintained throughout the film, and will bracket the ending as it did the beginning, but the bulk of the story is about recovery from adverse conditions, strength in numbers, and in the trust that the meek shall inherit the Earth. There are some slow sections, but Glenn Ford's star presence props up any lags, and the real story is propelled by Evelyn Keyes, and the great Beulah Bondi in a supporting role as a fellow social worker at the Home.

Give it a shot if you're up for a different kind of Christmas movie. Two Thumbs Up for "Mr. Soft Touch". 

I don't like being home at the moment because I live next door to non-stop party people and it's become an untenable situation. Currently I prefer being at Pearl's, and if there is any way I can do so, I am gonna try to get out of this building in 2021. I only mention it because today was a little trying, hence the short blog and just one movie review instead of two. But I'll be back tomorrow with the other one. In the meantime, here's Five Tomes, big books of 600 pages or more that have greatly influenced my perspective in recent years.

1) "Energy From The Vacuum" by Thomas Bearden

2) "Genesis, Creation and Early Man" by Father Seraphim Rose

3) "Aberration in the Heartland of the Real : The Secret Lives of Timothy McVeigh" by Wendy Painting

4) "The Rendlesham Enigma" by Jim Penniston

5) "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael Cremo  

See you in the morning. Tons of Love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

Two Noirs With Good Lead Performances : "The Chase" and "Inner Sanctum"

Tonight I watched a psychological thriller called "The Chase"(1946), once again starring Robert Cummings, who we saw the other night as a French patriot in "Reign of Terror". This time he plays "Chuck Scott", a down on his luck sailor who gets a job as chauffeur for cold-blooded hoodlum "Eddie Roman". Eddie lives in a garish Miami mansion. His wealth comes from contraband, shipped over from Cuba. He's got a sociopathic sidekick named Gino (Peter Lorre) and a trophy wife (Michele Morgan) who hates him. Thus you have your setup. Morgan is so desperate to get away from her husband, even for a few hours, that she takes to having Chuck drive her to the beach in the evenings while Eddie is out doing business. One night, Chuck sees her standing on the edge of the pier. It's obvious she's contemplating suicide, so he stops her. She confesses her plight (Eddie is a tyrant), and the next thing you know, Chuck wants to protect her so they fall in love. Remember that Cummings had a hit series called "Love That Bob"! And that's what happens here. Michele Morgan falls for him and they sneak off to Havana in the middle of the night on a tramp steamer.

But the thing is, that no one does this to Eddie Roman, especially not his formerly captive wife. Roman is played by an actor named Steve Cochran, whom I hadn't heard of before, but he's fantastic. He's got the looks of Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power and the menace of......hmmm.....the menace of......well, I can't really think of anybody who compares. As Cochran plays him, Eddie is alternately charming and threatening, but always quiet and articulate, and above all he's extremely scary. He feels like a real life character, and I'm surprised that Cochran didn't have a bigger career, with his looks and acting talent.

Well anyhow, after the lovers split for Havana, Eddie and Peter Lorre track them down. Something happens that I can't tell you about, and then - whoa! - the movie does a 180 on you. I can't tell you about that, either, but you get a hint of it at the beginning, and at one or two intervals afterwards, when you briefly see Cummings popping prescription pills for an unspecified reason.

There are a number of good twists in "The Chase", and the suspense holds tight throughout. I don't know what your opinion will be on the 180 degree turn. As a device, I found it a little too easy, yet clever at the same time. The movie has a ton of style, and there is one touch that is downright original. I told you that Robert Cummings is Eddie's chauffeur, right? Well, Eddie is also a backseat driver, literally. His limo has a custom gas pedal installed in the back seat, so that Eddie can take over and "floor it" whenever he wants to. 

"The Chase" has an air of smoothness to it, with gauzy photography and a romantic score. But it's Steve Cochran's performance you'll remember above all, it's chilling. Despite the plot gimmick, it's a very good flick and highly recommended. /////

Last night's movie was a weird little noir called "Inner Sanctum" (1948), a title taken from the hit radio show of the same name that ran in the '40s. I'll just give ya a quick synopsis on this one. Charles Russell plays "Harold Dunlap", a man who gets into an argument with his girlfriend one night, at a train station in the pouring rain. He accidentally kills her, and fearing he'll be blamed for murder, he dumps her body on the back of a departing train, and then skulks away in the darkness.

But he's been seen, by a boy whose hobby is trainspotting. This kid ("Mike", a goofball with a propeller cap on his head) lives at a nearby boarding house with his mother. Charles Russell winds up staying at the house and has to keep Mike quiet as the news gets out about the murder. The road's been washed out by the rainstorm, so Russell can't leave town as he'd planned. Instead, he's stuck in the boarding house with a whole host of characters, including a newspaper reporter who's hot on the murder story, a couple of drunks (included for comic relief), and a Disillusioned Dame who's hot to leave the scene as well. She's played by Mary Beth Hughes, as a self-sufficient chick who's tired of being alone. She wants to hook up with Russell and get out of the boarding house in which she's felt trapped for several years. But as the news comes in about the body on the train, she becomes aware of what Russell is hiding. And so does Mike, the kid from the train station.

The print on this movie was so-so, and at first the plot felt constrained by the low budget production values, where you have everything filmed in one location (the boarding house). But that is overcome by the high standard of the writing and editing, and the pushing to the forefront of the Mary Beth Hughes character. Once she catches on to Russell's deception, the gig is up. Now he's caught between her and the kid, and something's gotta give.

As with Steve Cochran in "The Chase", I hadn't heard of Charles Russell, but he is also good in the sociopath role, playing it nonchalant as opposed to frightening. And his onscreen presence is as strong as Cochran's in the opposite way. But it's Mary Beth Hughes who steals the picture, with her "been there, done that" insouciance. She sees Russell coming from a mile away, and in her determination he's met his match.

Well, so there you have it, two above average crime films, noirs, thrillers, call them what you will. They may not match up to the perfectionist standard of "Loophole", but the lead performances are more than enough reason to watch either one, and both have enough twists to keep you on your toes. ////

That's all for tonight, see you in the morning, tons of love!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

Elizabeth + Two Excellent Movies : "Loophole" and "1944"

Elizabeth, before I say anything else I've gotta say thanks for posting that beautiful photograph of the cabin in the snowy woods. That's exactly the kind of winter photo I was asking for. We don't get snow around here unless you go up to the mountains, and even then we don't get it every year. When I was a kid, we called it "going to the snow", which meant driving up to Frazier Park and Pine Mountain, about 90 minutes away. Up there, you might see a scene similar to the one in your photo, but it's been so long since I've "been to the snow" that I enjoy it best nowdays through your pictures. If I'm not mistaken, you took a photo years ago of an abandoned cabin in your area. I don't recall if it was in wintertime, and it may not have been the same cabin, but the effect is similar, of a different and more simple time. And the blanket of snow adds a cozy feeling, of calm and silence. So thanks! I asked for a winter wonderland and you posted it, and a beautiful photo it is. I hope you are enjoying some hikes and having a good holiday season.

(And making some amazing dishes also.......)    :)   

Well, I'm back home and I've got a really good movie to report tonight! It's called "Loophole"(1954), the story of a bank teller who gets blamed for a theft he didn't commit. Barry Sullivan stars as "Mike Donovan", longtime teller at the Hollywood branch of First Federal Savings. As the movie opens, the bank is being audited by government inspectors, a process that happens at random to keep the employees honest. Mike is the soul of honesty, but this time his cash count comes up short - to the tune of fifty thousand dollars. But it turns out there was an extra inspector there that day, an eleventh man instead of the usual ten. The man was an impostor, and it was he who made off with the 50 Gees, with the help of his Gal Pal who distracted Mike at just the right time. It's okay if I tell you this, because the movie states it up front. But the investigator from the bank's insurance company (the great Charles McGraw), doesn't believe Mike's story. He thinks Mike stole the money himself, so he proceeds to hound Mike and his wife (Dorothy Malone) for the remainder of the movie.

Meanwhile, the FBI is also on the case. Their agents believe Mike is innocent. He passes a lie detector test, and for a while it looks like he may get his life back. He's lost his job at the bank, but lands another one as a gas station manager. However, Charles McGraw won't let up, and gets him fired from that gig, too. Finally, Mike ends up driving a taxi, and who should be his boss but...........Mr. Reeves!

Yeah, it's way too cool. Mike is trying to stay on his feet and hold his marriage together, while at the same time trying to prove he didn't steal the money from the bank. Even though the FBI has cleared him, he wants McGraw off his back. And Mr. Reeves is on his side. When McGraw shows up at the taxi service to try and get Mike fired once again, Reeves tells him to get lost. Way to go, Mr. Reeves!

Mr. Reeves will also play a crucial role in the film's conclusion. You can call "Loophole" a noir or a crime film. It has Tough Broads and Slimeballs who could figure in either genre, but there's no shadowy photography typical of a film noir. The story moves at a very fast pace and in that sense, you could call it the movie equivalent of a "page turner" book. You just can't stop watching, because you've gotta see what happens next! There's some great location footage of early '50s Hollywood, and also a narrator who sets the story up for you, then returns at the end to deliver the moralistic punchline. I'm surprised that "Loophole" doesn't have a more highly acknowledged reputation among noir enthusiasts. I'd never heard of it until tonight, but it's great stuff, and I'm gonna go all the way and call it a must-see. Talk about a movie that won't bore you even for one second - this is it! ///// 

I also watched a tremendous movie last night, a WW2 film called "1944", made in 2015 by an Estonian director named Elmo Nuganen. This one I watched on a dvd obtained from the Libe, something I haven't done as much this year because of the time it currently takes to receive one's library holds, but I read a strong recommendation for the movie and knew I had to see it. 

It's a perspective on WW2 that I don't think we've seen before, from the point of view of Estonian soldiers, who fought on both the German and Soviet sides. I had to look up Estonia on the map; it's a lot further north than I'd imagined, just south of Finland across the Baltic Sea. I'd pictured it as being east of Poland and on the same latitude, but it's very close to being part of Scandinavia instead. In any event, by 1944 the Germans had advanced through Poland and Lithuania, right up to the Estonian border, which was now the front line against the Soviet Union. And in the other direction, Estonia shares it's eastern border with Russia, so the country was caught in a pinch between the powers of Fascism and Communism, and the young men of Estonia were forced to choose sides. Depending on their personal outlook, some chose to fight for Germany and others for the Soviets. Often this decision was based on which army had destroyed their hometowns, which usually resulted in the deaths of family members. If the Nazis, say, had raided a village and ruined the citizens' lives, the surviving men would likely sign up with the Soviet Army. And vice versa, if it had been the Soviet soldiers who pillaged their town, the Estonian boys would join with the Germans to defeat them.

It's not 100% clear from the dialogue whether or not enlistment was voluntary or by conscription, and I haven't yet read up on it, but what the movie shows, at least from the side of Estonians fighting with Germany, is that they had no loyalty to that country, nor to Hitler, whom they treat as a joke, making fun of him in front of their German superiors. But the movie shows that they are all young boys, Estonians and Germans alike, and as such, they are all frightened, not only by the war but by their colonels and the fearsome Waffen SS officials, to whom the slightest disobedience is cause for a soldier to be shot. It's grim stuff, but then it's also what really happened, so there's no point in downplaying it. 

The director does a brilliant job of showing the plight of young men, most of them teenagers or not much older, caught up in a horror they have no say in. They didn't create the war, nor the culture and policies that led up to it, but it's all they know, because the part of the world they lived in, at that time, was beset by warfare for centuries. I have to take an aside to comment on what I was thinking a couple of days ago. I thought that, "y'know, Europe as a whole has been fighting, one or more countries against each other, for more than two thousand years, and they've been doing so on a continuous basis, right up until the end of World War Two". That is a mind boggling thing to consider. The countries of Europe were at constant war with one another for over two thousand years. And the only thing that put a stop to it was the advancement of war technology, and the onset of the United States as the premier world military power. We had to bomb Germany to smithereens to end World War 2, and as horrible as that bombing was, little else would have stopped the Nazis. After that show of power, the war ended and the United Nations was formed, and then NATO. Now we're all on the same side, but my point is, that it's only been a mere 75 years that Europe has lived in a relative state of peace, after millennia of war.

In a Hollywood movie such as "Loophole", you can watch the crime and violence and not be affected because it's stylized. That's what's so great about the Golden Era of Hollywood, that the cinematic style came right up to the boundaries of real life, but did not cross those boundaries. Thus, there was no gross violence in a crime film. But in a modern war movie like "1944", you are gonna see the real thing, which is why I can only recommend it for the non-squeamish viewer. One final note concerns the dvd itself. For some reason (which I cannot understand), the producers, or whoever was in charge of the dvd release, made some really weird decisions where the subtitles are concerned. To be honest, they went the El Cheapo route, and the result is that the subtitles are not rendered in clear English. Instead they are garbled and have to be interpreted. But that's not the worst of it. Apparently, someone felt the subtitles weren't enough, so in addition, you get a singular Dubbed Voice over the top of the subtitles, of a Russian or Estonian man (I have no idea which), dubbing the dialogue of every single character in the movie. In other words, you can't hear the individual characters speaking their lines, because the dubber is reading over them at a higher volume.

It's as if a single individual was sitting next to you in a movie theater, reading every word of dialogue from every character aloud, as you tried to watch the movie.

It's off putting to say the least (and on IMDB it caused some folks to turn the movie off), but if you are gonna watch "1944" I implore you to work your way through the pidgin English subtitles, and to ignore the overbearing dubber if you can do so, because this is an important and tremendous movie that deserves to be seen. Maybe one day Criterion will do it right. Highly recommended in any event.  ///

That's all for tonight. See you in the morning. Tons of love!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

   

Elizabeth (that curry!) + "Reign of Terror" directed by Anthony Mann

Elizabeth, that pot of curry looks incredibly delicious! Oh man, I hate to say it, but it's all I can do not to send Instagram comments when you make food posts. I know I said I wouldn't post comments anymore (because of your birthday post, I didn't wanna be a nuisance in any way), but is it okay if I comment just on food posts, or non-personal posts? You can always trust my discretion, but the thing is, in this case, your curry looked so good that I wanted to let you know right there on the spot, and not wait until tonight's blog. :)

Well in any case, you have extended your talents into the culinary arts, and I'll bet (or rather I know) that you had an amazing dinner tonight! I also liked your second photo, and especially because your painting matches up with the fire in your fireplace. I'ts perfect, and that's a great painting. I have one of my own abstracts on my wall too, and what I've noticed is that living with your own painting causes it to reverberate in a small but noticeable way. Life is Art, and it's good to live with your own creations. I can't wait to paint again myself (need a bigger place though). But soon!

I hope you enjoyed your Snow Day. Maybe you can get out and take some "Winter Wonderland" pictures, too. Here, we had Gale Force Winds, so on my CSUN walk this afternoon I thought of Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, only it was way too blustery, haha.

Well anyhow, more food posts! And I hope you are working on your music, as always.  :)  /////

As for movies, here's something a little different: how about a film covering The Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, but shot as a Noir and directed by Anthony Mann? Quite a unique approach, eh? The film was "Reign of Terror"(1949), starring Richard Basehart as Maximillian Robespierre, the Jacobin leader who ended up becoming a tyrant once he took power. To maintain his authority, he played his friends off one another, and he kept them in a state of fear by keeping a Black Book of those he planned to execute. He would hold jam-packed rallies in Paris where he would tell his public that he "did it all for them", the overthrow of Louis XVI and the royal court, etc.

Does all of this remind you of anyone? (cough cough)

To avoid a political tirade, let's get back to the movie. Anthony Mann was known for his panoramic Westerns starring Jimmy Stewart (pronounced Jimm-ay Schtoo-art). But he also made some noirs and crime films, including "T-Men", and in "Reign of Terror" he extends the genre further by taking a historical narrative, imbuing it with period piece art direction, and filming it as the darkest of noirs imaginable. Richard Basehart is ruthless and without mercy as Robespierre. Most of us know him as "Admiral Nelson" from the "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" television series, but before that, he was a motion picture actor of some range, portraying everything from troubled criminals to powdered wig French autocrats as we see here.

In the plot, he is opposed by Fouche (Arnold Moss) his Chief of Secret Police, who knows about the Black Book and therefore cannot be blackmailed by Robespierre when it goes missing. But the real star of the movie is Robert Cummings, who - like Richard Basehart - was a fine motion picture actor before he became famous to later generations for his television work, such as his hit series "Love That Bob". Here though, he makes a star turn portraying "Charles D'Aubigny", a patriot loyal to the King who has been marked for death by Robespierre. With the help of Fouche, and his long lost love Madelon, he sets out to find the Black Book, with which he will expose Robespierre to the populace.

Mann directs this picture as a fast paced thriller, but it's unique because he also manages to include some actual history, due to the dialogue, and Richard Basehart's performance as Robespierre. But the real star of the show may be cinematographer John Alton. Looking at his IMDB just now, I see that I've mentioned him before, because he began his career as a lab technician at MGM, just like me. His filmography was prolific, though made up of mostly nondescript films, but he did work with Anthony Mann on "T-Men", and here, on "Reign Of Terror", he photographs the movie so darkly in shadow that the lighting and framing of the characters becomes a thematic element itself. It's one of the darkest photography jobs you'll ever see, and it's brilliant.

The plot does get bogged down for a minute or two, here and there, by the yearnings of the romantic subplot, but it's a minor distraction in what is otherwise a taut suspense film. Again, I must stress that I'm a huge fan of romance. It's just that when you mix it in with a thriller, you'd better do it in small and well-timed doses, so as not to break up the action. Still, this is a highly recommended movie. The photography alone will keep you watching, as will the performances of Basehart and Cummings, and while Mann's direction is maybe more suited to the pace of his laconic Westerns, he does an admirable job here of bringing in a very tight Film Noir, as History Lesson. /////

That's all I've got for tonight. Tomorrow I'll be back home and off work until December 28. We'll be queuing up some Christmas movies and hopefully some Charles Dickens as well, if my holds from the library arrive in time. I hope you are enjoying the Holiday Season.

See you in the morning, tons and tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)  

"Without Warning!", written by Bill Raynor + Elizabeth

 Purely by chance I stumbled upon a treat this evening, a low-budget crime film about a serial killer, shot on the outskirts of Downtown Los Angeles, including Chavez Ravine, and.....(best of all)......written by that erstwhile baby photographer Bill Raynor! You remember him; I've mentioned Bill Raynor once or twice before. He was our neighbor on Hatton Street here in Reseda, and in fact, he lived just across the street from us and right next door to Mr. Reeves (Richard Reeves), the character actor of a hundred westerns, noirs and tv shows whom I've mentioned many times over the years. Thinking back on it, it's kind of neat that we had three movie business people all grouped together there on Hatton : Bill Raynor, Mr. Reeves, and Dad. And Bill was also an amateur photographer who had taken night classes at Reseda High School. He took some classic baby pictures of me (well, me at two years old), which I have also mentioned a time or two.

Please forgive all the preamble, but imagine my surprise when I clicked on the first movie I found tonight, and saw "Written by Bill Raynor" in the opening credits! Also, keep in mind that I am writing this blog at Pearl's, which is just around the corner from Hatton Street. I am perhaps 75 yards from Bill Raynor's old driveway as I write, so all of this is cool, especially since the movie turned out to be so good, even better than his sci-fi classic "Phantom From Space". It was called "Without Warning!" (1952, exclamation point included), and though there are no recognizable names in the cast, the acting is good and there are faces you've seen before. Likewise, though I don't know the director Arnold Laven, he keeps things tight and moving forward.

An actor named Adam Williams (a familiar face) plays a Psycho Killer who has it in for blondes who resemble his wife. We see him in operation, and he's as cold blooded as they come, though the editing avoids on-screen violence. The focus is instead on Williams' creepiness as he hangs around bars looking for victims. Very often it's a woman who picks him up, which is what sets him off.

Interspersed with the murders is the LAPD's effort to catch the killer, and what's interesting is the forensic aspects that are shown. Even back in 1952, they were doing microscopic investigation of fibers and chemical breakdowns of fluids and other crime scene materials. The director intercuts all of this as if you are right there, hot on the killer's trail. He lives in a shack at the end of a road in what looks like a Shantytown. It's up on a hill overlooking the freeway, which was brand new in '52. I was thinking, "hmmm, could it be what I think it is"?, and it was. It was Chavez Ravine ten years before Dodger Stadium was built. Now, Chavez is a featured location in many of the "Highway Patrol" episodes I've seen, though I've never seen this particular street before. It looks like a remnant from a poverty pocket in turn of the century Los Angeles, and it sticks out against the concrete bulwark of the surrounding freeway system.

The photography in this movie is exceptional, even artful in places, and that is due to the presence of the great Joseph Biroc, noted cinematographer of many a classic noir. What a blessing it is to have his work preserved in films like this, which capture a lost version of our city only available through the magic of motion pictures. There are scenes downtown in front of movie theaters that weren't even there in the 1960s, they'd been demolished by then, so this is Downtown as a "time capsule" even different from the one you've seen in earlier films from the 30s and 40s. The early 50s had it's own special look, with it's bulbous Dick Tracy cars. Biroc captures it all in perfect framing.

One last thing of note : at around the 1:09 mark, the cops are running down a list of names of suspects who've shopped at a certain garden store. It's a short list, only two or three names are mentioned. But one of the names is my last name, which is to say my Dad's last name. It goes without saying that it caught me by surprise, and at first I thought "wow, cool! Thanks, Mr. Raynor". It's happened before, with Uncle Rod, but this would've been the earliest one of these "namesakes" that I am aware of. But then I thought, "wait a minute.....the movie was made in 1952. We didn't move to Hatton Street until 1953". So either there's a mistake in the release date, or an overlap of some kind, or it's a total coincidence and Bill Raynor pulled our name, not a common name, out of a hat and then we became his neighbor a year later. Which would be weird.

I don't know, but then, in the immortal words Henry from "Eraserhead", "I don't know much of anything". //

Elizabeth, if you are still reading I saw your post and I hope you can get back to hiking soon, and your road trips. Are you guys on a state lockdown? Or maybe there's one in Michigan? I know how much you love Porcupine Mountains and I myself can't wait until you get back there, because I love it when you post your beautiful photographs of that amazing place, and I can then enjoy it too. In the meantime, I hope you can still hike locally, or in other places. I always look forward to your posts in any event, and I know things are gonna change for the better very soon.  :):)

I hope you are having a nice Christmas Season. I am missing singing in church, but am enjoying listening to the Christmas music on Classical KUSC.

That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. Tons of love!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

Soup (for Elizabeth) + "Red-Haired Alibi", a pre-code freeze-up + Siege Engines

First I have to say : Elizabeth, your soup looks delicious. Next time if you could please include a recipe. :)

I have to learn more about curry, because I love spice and I love hot food. I can imagine how a sweet potato and curry soup would warm and fill the soul on a cold winter night. I am not an expert on soups, but I am pretty good with French Onion, and I've gotta make a batch pretty soon. The dreaded L.A.Cold hasn't set in yet, but by January we'll be in for it, so I'll have to get the soup pot out, something I haven't done for a couple of years. I've only ever made French Onion and Split Pea, but I'd like to learn some new soups. You are already a good cook, as evidenced by many prior posts, and I hope you don't mind if I continue to comment - here at the blog - about anything "not personal" (as mentioned recently). I mean, I've been your friend for all this time, right? So I'll keep my comments here, but I've gotta chime in on things like food, or anything artistic. I hope all is going well for you. Stay safe and stay well and keep posting!  :):)

Well anyhow, tonight's movie was "Red-Haired Alibi"(1932), a pre-code crime drama about a young woman (Merna Kennedy) who gets involved with a big city gangster, not knowing who he is until it's too late. "Lynn Monith" works in a department store; her bright red hair attracts the male eye, and soon after "Mr. Travers" (Theodore von Eltz) shows up at her perfume counter, they are out on a date. She's nice but naive, he's an underworld sharpie, though he presents himself as a businessman (don't they always?). Lynn is about to be unemployed - her store is to be razed for an office building - and she makes this known to Mr. Travers. It's the reason she went out with him in the first place : she needs a new job. He promises to get her her one if she'll move to New York. She agrees, but has no idea he's setting her up as his alibi for a murder.

The plot isn't bad, it's an interesting setup, with realistic dialogue, almost as if you were watching two people having a conversation, with one of them - the young lady - getting the wool pulled over her eyes. And the early actress Merna Kennedy is quite good. She looks similar to Norma Shearer and has a very natural acting style. I've noticed this as one of two tendencies in the first years of sound pictures. One is for actors to continue to use the techniques they learned in their Silent Film days, which feature exaggerated gestures and expressions. But the other is a very natural presence in front of the camera, as if the actor is comfortable simply being himself. I must step in to say that I've noticed this advanced technique more often in early sound actresses rather than in their male counterparts, but it's as if some actors (or actresses) were already hip to what the changes in talking pictures entailed. They knew, or were told by directors, to "tone things down" and not to "play to the back row" as they may have done on the stage or in Silents.

All of this is to say that Merna Kennedy was a very good actress. This is the only film I've seen her in (and she died young, at 36), but she's the main reason to watch the movie. Though the story is good, the technical aspects of the production are wooden. There is no music, the camera is static and the direction dull, without any dynamic tension whatsoever.

Finally it is worth noting that "Red-Haired Alibi" is Shirley Temple's very first feature film. She is either three or four here, depending on when the movie was shot, and she is not yet the Charming Moppet she'd soon become, in fact she's so unaware of being in a movie that she speaks all of her lines by rote, and doesn't know where the camera is. But hey, she's only three, and in one more year she went on to rule Hollywood. She must've had a lot of training during that time, and was obviously a very smart kid.

Still, the only reason to watch the film is for Merna Kennedy's performance, or if you are a fan of pre-code Hollywood (though even in that regard, it's not very "pre-code racy"). /////

Now, this next bit is gonna come out of left field. It's not about a movie or anything relevant, and I'm sorry. I apologize in advance, but I have to go on a tirade about Siege Engines. Have you ever heard of them? I hadn't until two days ago, and now I'm hooked on 'em. It happened almost instantaneously. I'm reading a book called "The History of Warfare" by John Keegan, and he mentions them in detail, and I know it's ridiculous but I'm cracking up because the name gets me. I've always had a "thing" about funny words or names, as I'm sure you've noticed, and when I first read Keegan's chapter about something called a Siege Engine, it got my hackles up simply because of two things : the sound of the words together, and the fact that the author was describing a weapon from Medieval times.

I remember thinking, "what the hell is a Siege Engine"? Then I thought, "there were no engines in the Dark Ages!  I'd better Google this".

I discovered that the Siege Engine was used as far back as 800 BC. Keegan writes about the weapon as if the reader is already familiar with it; I wasn't, so I had to Google it, and when I saw the images I just started laughing. I'm sure it wasn't funny to those it was used against, but to me, it quickly became a riot, and now I've got Siege Engines on the brain. The whole thing sounds very Monty Python, at least to me, and when you see what one looks like, you'll agree. It resembles an Industrial Strength Battering Ram, where the log itself is housed in a kind of A-Frame cabin, like a chalet. The whole thing is on wheels (wooden, of course), and it's huge. It looks like a dozen men would be needed to operate it.

Anyway, I thought to myself : "Nowdays, they just kick your door in". But back then, some cities built walls several feet thick (the Walls of Jericho were 10 feet thick), so you couldn't just have a linebacker-sized police lietenant kick the door down; you needed a Siege Engine. Now, it is true that in Los Angeles, in the late 80s and early 90s, our Police Chief Darryl Gates had his own version of a Siege Engine. It was more or less a small tank, perhaps with a battering ram attached (don't recall for sure), and in fact I think it was called the LAPD's "Battering Ram". Chief Gates would use it against Crack Houses that had been fortified, and some of them were impenetrable by any other means. Drug dealers would install metal doors and wrought iron window grates on their dens of iniquity. All glass was blacked out, and I remember at one house the only opening was a slot in the front door, which was as fortified as a bank vault, and you'd put your money through the slot and a baggie would come out in response, with your purchase.

No, I didn't go there myself. Good grief, people. I saw it on the news. (geez...)  :)

But anyway, when the cops discovered one of these houses, Chief Gates would call out the Battering Ram, which now that I think of it, qualifies as a Siege Engine of sorts. And they always showed it on the news, knocking down a crack house, as a warning to other dealers. But my point was that, in movies you basically just see cops kicking in someone's door, but 2500 years ago the walls were ten feet thick so you needed a Siege Engine to get the job done.

To sum up, the reason it's hilarious is, first, the name itself : "Siege Engine" just sounds funny. Secondly, when you combine the term with what the thing actually looks like, it's straight out of Monty Python. Or, it could also be a Heavy Metal thing. You could call your band Siege Engine. Really I think that Jerry Seinfeld needs to do a riff on the subject. He could take it all the way, get to the bottom of it. "What's the deal with Siege Engines anyway"? For me, sorry but it's just one of those things I find hilarious, so I had to mention it. And yeah I know I'm nutty.  :):) 

Tons of love. See you in the freakin' morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox  :):)

A Franchot Tone Double Bill

 Last night's film was a weird little psychological thriller called "Without Honor"(1950) starring Laraine Day (most famous as Nurse Mary Lamont in the "Dr. Kildare" movies). Here she plays a housewife who is having an affair. As the movie opens, her lover (Franchot Tone) shows up at her house to tell her it's all over. A private detective has been tailing him and has pictures of the two of them together. "I don't know who hired him, but if my daughters see those photos it'll destroy them".

Day is crushed. She's in love with Tone and has justified the affair by saying that her marriage is unfulfilling. She's placed her trust in Tone (and I've gotta step in to say.......is that a great Movie Star name, or what? Franchot Tone. And it wasn't even a made up name).

Where was I? Oh yeah, so Laraine Day has staked everything on Tone leaving his wife. Then she will leave her husband and they can be together; they won't have to sneak around anymore. But now he's come over to tell her it isn't happening. He can't let his daughters find out he's an adulterer. Day becomes distraught at the news, and something happens..........which of course I can't tell you.

Enter Dane Clark. You remember Clark, we just saw him in "The Man Is Armed" a couple nights ago. We noted his dependability as a noir stalwart, but also as an actor of some versatility. He's not a Johnny One Note, so any time you see his name on the marquee your ears perk up, because you might be in for a treat. This time, he plays an Obnoxious Bastard. He's Laraine Day's brother-in-law, and I probably shouldn't tell you this, but he's the one who hired the detective : "To protect my brother Freddie, who's too naive to see through your ladylike act". But that's not his real motive. Clark is a total Mook in this picture, a cunning thug who plays his cleverness as sophistication. He despises his brother's wife and wants to make her feel small now that he knows her secret. For her part, Laraine Day walks around in a trance once Clark shows up. She can't get rid of him and tries to escape out the window of her own house instead.

I can't tell you much more of the plot because it's based on surprise, but the film gets right to the point and wastes no time in it's 66 minute sprint to the finish line. It feels like a one act play, or maybe one and a half acts due to what happens at the beginning, and the entire story plays out over the course of an afternoon. Once again we have a great cast in what appears to be an independent production, and filling out the supporting roles are Bruce Bennett as Day's husband, and the great Agnes Moorehead as the wife of Franchot Tone.

Finally, the subject of adultery is given an understanding take in this case, which is interesting and perhaps insightful as the movie was made in 1950. In similar films from later decades, or even classic noirs from the 1940s, the subject is depicted in starker terms, usually with a high price to be paid by the woman involved in the tryst. Here, we see her inner turmoil instead, and it's spelled out what led her to this place. She's not an angelic figure and this isn't a feminist point of view, but the writing takes things a few steps further than the usual cheating scenario. Day plays it quite well and you feel for her because Clark is such a creep.

A small touch that gives the movie nostaglic value : at one point toward the end, Day's husband comes home from work, blissfully unaware of what is taking place inside his house. He arrives with a delivery man right behind him, to bring in a special present he's bought for his wife : a brand new television set, and by "brand new" I mean not only the tv itself but the very idea of home television. This movie was released in 1950, when the very first tv sets were making their way into the homes of folks who could afford them. Now, before you get technical on me, I'm aware that there were sets in some homes as early as 1939, but they were few and far between. They took up half a living room and would have been experimental in nature, and would've cost a fortune. I am talking about TV for the general public, which would've begun around 1949 and caught on more generally by about 1953 or so. I have an interest in the history of television because my Dad was there at the beginning, as the WLW radio station in Cincinnati acquired television rights in the late 40s, and then Dad got a job at ABC-TV in Hollywood in 1951.

At any rate, it's a kick to see Bruce Bennett (a Western star who also played Tarzan) as a typical 1950s husband bringing home a newfangled TV set. Too bad Dane Clark has to ruin the occasion, but anyhow, even though the movie has some shortcomings, mainly an underdeveloped subplot, it's well worth a watch. As a special bonus, it appears to have been filmed in Northridge or some nearby environ. The address of the Bennett house is 9635 or something very close, which would indicate a Plummer Street intersection on the north/south longitude, and one of the final lines in the picture is "I'll go look in the Orange Grove"!, which the character proceeds to do right before the climax. Give it a look, it'll hold your attention. //////

Now, I swear I didn't plan this, but tonight's movie also stars Franchot Tone. I've gotta take his name a step farther, to let you know that the "t" in Franchot is silent, so it's pronouced "Fran-cho". I learned that years ago when my Mom corrected me after I called him "Franchot" with a hard "t". But the deal is, for me, that I like his name better the way I pronounced it, so forget the Fran-cho. For our purposes, it's Fran - chott all the way. Tonight he stars in "Jigsaw"(1949), in which he plays an assistant district attorney trying to break up an underground hate group in an unnamed big city. 

Holy Trump! The script here is incredibly insightful and instructive. Tone has a friend, a star columnist for the city paper, who is trying to expose this group. In his conversational dialogue with Tone, he explains how hate groups are "bottom line" about making money for those who head them up. The particulars are too lengthy to go into, but my goodness it parallels what Trump is doing, especially post-election, to a freaking "T". Trump has made almost 200 million dollars in donations just by pushing his false election claims.

Can you freaking believe that? 

More importantly, he got elected president (small case "p"), by stoking hate and division. The first act of this movie, which features the investigation of the newspaper columnist, describes this type of power grab as if it were Trump himself as the subject. Hate Mongering as hugely profitable. And this is 1949.

That's why the movie is recommended, even though the print is so-so and the direction is somnambulistic. At times it feels as if the actors are line-reading their parts at a rehearsal. But the info in the script, about hate groups and the profit margin behind them is quite a revelation, going back as it does to the McCarthy era. 

To sum up, watch both of the flicks in this review and get yourself a Franchot Tone fix. His name deserves it. See you in the morning, or in the Orange Grove, or both.

Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)  

Two Movies, One Good One Bad : "Stark Fear" and "Letter from an Unknown Woman"

 Last night's movie was "Stark Fear"(1962), a combination Soap Opera/Noir starring Beverly Garland as an abused wife who runs off with her boss (Kenneth Tobey) in order to escape her sadistic husband (Skip  Homeier). This is one of those low budget movies that come up every once in a while, where you've never heard of the "studio" (Holiday Pictures, anyone?), nor the director (Ned Hockman), and it seems like the whole thing was a pet project of some wannabe producer who scraped up enough money to hire a few well known actors. Or maybe he knew one or two of them and they were doing him a favor. I selected "Stark Fear" from a Youtube list mainly because of the cast; Garland has become a favorite of mine, I have her "Decoy" TV series on dvd and she was great as a scream queen in well made sci-fi flicks like "The Alligator People". She was also Roger Corman's girlfriend for a while. Kenneth Tobey was likewise a staple in '50s B-Cinema, often playing Generals and other authority figures. He was also one of the leads in "The Thing From Another World", one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time. And Skip Homeier can be seen in the same era in many Westerns and Noirs, in movies and on tv.

So you've got a solid cast, but the story loses coherence very quickly. After twenty minutes, I developed a Stark Fear that I wouldn't be able to finish watching, but I held out for Beverly Garland. Now, she is always good. She may not be Meryl Streep but then she isn't trying to be. What she was, was competent and professional, with obvious training in the Method school, and most of all, she had personality and intelligence, and a unique look. I mention all of this because somehow, the director managed to get a bad performance out of her, or at least an overwrought one. Maybe he used all the wrong takes, I dunno. But Garland never overacts, except in this film. Apparently the director walked out partway through, and Skip Homeier took over for the remainder of the shoot. On IMDB, there is a note from Beverly Garland that this was the least favorite of her pictures. I concur.  

There are several reviewers on IMDB calling "Stark Fear" an overlooked gem, but don't you believe 'em. They've got the "overlooked" part right however, and that's what you should do to avoid losing 84 minutes of your life to "Stark Fear". The plot isn't worth mentioning, which is why I didn't do so. It's sub-Tennessee Williams psycho-schlock. Better luck next time. /////

A much better option is tonight's picture : "Letter from an Unknown Woman"(1948), directed by the great Max Ophuls and starring Joan Fontaine and Louis Jourdan as a pair of star-crossed lovers in turn-of-the-century Vienna. Fontaine is "Lisa", a teenage girl living with her widowed mother in a drab apartment building. Lisa's existence is a lonely one until one day a new tenant moves in. He is "Stefan Brand" (Jourdan), a brilliant pianist on the verge of stardom. He's also impossibly handsome, and Lisa soon envelops herself in his presence, sitting in the courtyard all day listening to him practice, making sure to pass him in the hallway, etc. He's perhaps ten years older than she, and very suave compared to her status as a commoner. He barely notices that she exists, but she is fixated on him. Then one day her mother announces that they are moving, and Lisa is crushed.

Now living in Linz, Austria, Lisa takes a job as a dress model at a high fashion clothing store. She has blossomed into a beauty and a young military cadet has taken notice. He dates her through the approval of her mother and the mother's new husband, though Lisa wants nothing to do with him. She is still in love with Stefan, and soon she ditches the whole scene, leaving Linz, her job, the cadet and her mother to travel back to Vienna to look for Stefan, even though he never really noticed her when they were neighbors.

Because this is a melodrama, you can bet she finds him. Though no time frame is given, several years seem to have passed (maybe about five), and Stefan is now in demand on the European concert circuit. Lisa finds him at a hotel and manages to strike up a conversation. Her look has changed, and he doesn't remember her as his former neighbor, but still..........something about her strikes his fancy. He has taken to living the Rock Star Lifestyle (classical music version), and by now he has a woman in every city. But he's never been in love. Lisa, however, has loved him from the moment she first saw him, all those years ago. She reminds him of something, but he can't place it, and she's too shy to admit that she's been crushing on him from afar for all this time.

They hit it off that very first night after meeting at the hotel. Soon they are dating and in love. One day, Stefan gets called away on a concert tour he'd forgotten about, so enraptured has he been by Lisa and her sincerity of feeling. At the train station, he tells her not to fret : "I'll only be gone two weeks", but you can tell by their expressions and the music cues that it's gonna be a lot longer than that.

Stefan can't seem to give up the groupie lifestyle, and it's interesting that, while it isn't explored in depth, Max Ophuls demonstrates that the same temptations and urges have always affected successful musicians, and really all celebrities of any stripe, no matter the century. In other words, the rock n' rollers didn't invent it. But if you believe in love, which Ophuls clearly does, it's a lifestyle with tragic consequences. Something major happens after Stefan leaves for his concert tour. I can't tell you what it is, but when we next see him he is a changed man, and is reading the letter from Lisa that figures in the movie's title, and make careful note of that title because it is all important.

Max Ophuls was a German director who worked in Hollywood during the heyday of his career. I discovered him through Criterion, and have several of his movies on dvd. He specialised in stories of tragic romance, or the downfall - through deceit - of members of the upper class in the same time period, late 19th to early 20th century. His films look as if they were shot through a velvet filter, so sumptuous is the lighting and art direction, the costumes and the sets. He creates a period look that is impeccable. Watch "The Earrings of Madame De" as a prime example, or "Le Plaisir".

I had never heard of "Letter from an Unknown Woman" until tonight, when I found it on Youtube, and though it's not quite as gripping as the aforementioned films, perhaps because of the slight lack of chemistry between Fontaine and Jourdan, it's nevertheless right up there, because of the script, the acting, and an incredible final image that will stay in your heart, a ghost if you will.

I was thinking to myself at the end of the movie, "I hope this one is on Criterion", because the print was only so-so. I checked, and while it's not been released on that label, it is available on Blu-ray. If you're gonna watch it, it's worth buying the disc. And while you're at it, check out the rest of Max Ophuls' work. When they say "they don't make movies like this anymore", he's a perfect example of what they're talking about.

That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. Tons and tons of love!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

"No Man's Woman" starring Marie Windsor + The Danger of General Flynn

Tonight I watched another potboiler from Republic Pictures, the studio that brought us "The Man Is Armed" (reviewed in the last blog). Republic seems to specialize in Quality Quickies, low budget affairs that are nonetheless well put together and acted. The only problem, as evidenced by "Armed", was with the script, and the writing detracts again tonight from an otherwise tight film called "No Man's Woman"(1955). With "Armed", the trouble was with the suspension of disbelief (see review); with "No Man's Woman" it lies in a poorly resolved plot. It's as if the screenwriters on these films are being hurried to the finish line, perhaps by producers on a schedule, or maybe they don't care that much (not getting paid enough), and so they "tack on" an ending, as my friends and I used to say, meaning just "hurry up, pick one out of a hat and pin it on".  In neither film has it been enough to ruin the movie, but you wonder why - if the writer could supply a crackerjack script for the first half of the picture, why couldn't he finish the job? It's gotta be either pressure from the studio or he just didn't give a hoot. One last thing about the pictures from Republic Pictures : they look great. As I may have mentioned in my review of "The Man Is Armed", Republic was the king of Poverty Row studios, and a respected independent. So despite the lack of budget their releases never look cheap, and they attracted good actors as well.

Marie Windsor stars as brassy dame "Carolyn Grant", the estranged wife of a wealthy businessman. He wants a divorce so he can marry a nice gal, but Carolyn won't give it to him unless he coughs up major cash. Her husband describes her as a "witch......no matter how you spell it", a classic line, and he's right on the money. Carolyn is strictly From Hell, played to the hilt by Windsor. She's a predator who hates to see anyone happy, so next she sets out to break up the engagement of the young lady who works as her assistant at the Beverly Hills art gallery she runs. She thrusts herself at the girl's fiancee, a sailor, but that's not all because she also has her art dealer business partner on the hook as well. Suffice it to say she's got a lot of enemies, but she's pretty sure she's got 'em all licked.

As awful as Carolyn is, the movie holds fast as long as Windsor is on the screen. I don't wanna tell you what happens, but after something does, the plot - previously very mysterious - slowly dissolves into the perfunctory. Still, as with Republic's "The Man Is Armed", the scriptural deficiency is not enough for me to disregard the film. Indeed, as it ended I found myself thinking, "another good one from Republic"! In other words, they give you enough Good Stuff in all other respects that you can overlook the half-baked writing, and also you should keep in mind that I'm a stickler for scripts. You might think the writing is okay.

But to sum up : with Republic you get your money's worth. You get a great looking flick, with big studio photography and even a few good sets. You only get one or two locations, but they aren't just somebody's Hollywood living room as in other Poverty Row movies. You get good actors like Dane Clark and Marie Windsor, and you get a script, and plot, that kicks butt for the first half of the film.

You could ask for more, but then you'd have to pay for the screenwriter to finish the film, and why would you do that when you're already getting your money's worth? As for me, I'm gonna be looking for more from Republic. Two Thumbs Up for "No Man's Woman", fast paced at 70 minutes.  ////

And now, a short commentary about the current political situation. I don't know about you, but I was more than a little disturbed by General Flynn's "tweet", earlier today, in which he stated that Trump should declare martial law and then suspend the Constitution in order to stage a "re-election", a second election that would apparently produce the results that the Trumpers want, even though they got creamed the first time around.

But : does anybody find it a little spooky that this time it's an ex-General saying this? I mean, Steve Bannon or Roger Stone is one thing. But Flynn - though a confessed Federal criminal who plead guilty - is still a retired General, a military man, and his psychotic "tweet" today evokes, to me, a throwback to the insubordination of apocalypse kooks like Air Force General Curtis Lemay and the Army's Lyman Lemnitzer,  both of whom wanted JFK to bomb the Soviet Union into the Stone Age in a first strike attack, in order to defeat communism.

Those guys were straight-up crazy. It's a shame that Lemay and Lemnitzer haven't been denounced in the past 60 years, and we are headed for a fall if we continue to allow people like General Flynn to spout their threats (and he did add a veiled threat to his "tweet"), without recrimination.

I suppose the Feds - the real Feds and not the Trumpian charlatans - know what they are doing. But again, I stress that in my opinion, it will be a huge mistake to allow all of this stuff to go unprosecuted.

These people are very dangerous, and they must be held to account. Not "maybe", but "must". ////

That's all I know. See you in the morning. Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

"The Man Is Armed" starring Dane Clark + "Man and Technics" by Oswald Spengler

 Tonight's movie was a low budget noir from Republic Pictures, sporting a Statement Title : "The Man Is Armed"(1956). See past blogs for an elaboration on the subject of S.Ts......  

Reliable noir veteran Dane Clark plays "Johnny Morrison",  a hothead who's just been paroled from San Quentin for a crime he didn't commit. Once out of the joint, he heads straight to L.A., to find the guy responsible for framing him. Thinking it was a former co-worker at the trucking company he drove for prior to getting locked up, Johnny confronts the guy at his apartment and ends up pushing him off the top of the building, to his death. No one sees him do it, but the cops - led by the great Barton MacLane (of 1930s gangster films) - are hot on his trail, suspecting him from the get go.

Free for the moment, and with an alibi, Johnny heads back to the office of the trucking company to ask for his old job back. The company owner is William Talman, which indicates right away that Johnny is in deeper trouble than he knows, because Talman is "The Hitch Hiker" from 1953, a sociopath of the highest order. Casting always plays a part in motion picture storylines, and once you've seen enough films you start to learn "who's who" in the sense of typecasting. Because of that you know what to expect going in. In an aside, I should mention that "The Hitch Hiker" was a top notch crime film directed by Ida Lupino, one of the first successful female directors who was also a movie star in her own right.

But William Talman? He always played a deadly slimeball, but a smart one and not to be trifled with......

So yeah, Johnny is in over his head by getting involved again with his old boss. As soon as they meet, Talman informs Johnny that he was the one who framed him. Then he laughs in his face. He insinuates that he's aware Johnny has killed his trucker co-worker, in a case of mistaken revenge. So now Talman has him blackmailed, adding insult to injury, and he forces Johnny to go along with him on a Brinks Truck robbery.

It sounds like a heck of a good setup, and it is. The trouble is that things become far fetched in the second half of the film. The first half is pure hard-boiled noir. But then they left the egg in the water a little too long and the yolk turned grey. Johnny, a sensitive tough guy, starts playing the movie's theme on piano. What gives? Is he writing the score as we go?  He's in love with William Talman's secretary (May Wynn), a woman unsure of herself who is torn between the erratic passion of Johnny and a highly respected doctor she's been dating since he went to prison. Johnny's efforts to tear her away from the doctor, and to free himself from the wiles of William Talman will spin the film off it's track, as plot points progress into The Stretchable, then The Unbelievable.

I'm all for suspending disbelief, and in fact I go out of my way to do so, but when things get to the point where I say "this would never happen", then you know a film has gone off the rails, because I am very forgiving (except for truly bad movies like "Cosmopolis", which I turned off at the three minute mark).

In short, "The Man Is Armed" is still worth a view, though it doesn't hold up past it's promising first half.

"Neighborhood Note" : The legendary Dick Reeves makes a brief appearance as one of the Brinks Job hoodlums. As reported in the past, Mr. Reeves lived right across the street from us on Hatton in Reseda. Me and Pearl pass his house every day on our walks.  /////

I just finished reading a book called "Man and Technics" by the German philosopher Oswald Spengler. It's actually more of a pamphlet, only 77 pages long, but it's worth reading in the context of what I was talking about the other day : the idea of progress in the modern era. I came to Spengler because I have on my bookshelf my Dad's copy of his most famous work : "The Decline of the West", written in 1931. I am not a student of philosophy, never studied the Greeks in school except maybe five minutes of Plato and Aristotle in 8th grade. And of course German philosophers are known to be - depending on your outlook - unbearably heavy (geez, why don't you lighten up, you German philosophers?). So yeah, I'm not much for philosophy, because I'm still working on my own haha, but having read some of Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", what I am impressed by, in an enormous way, is the ability of a major league thinker to organise his thoughts right down to the finest detail, and then to use logic to prove his point.

This process, at it's highest level, goes way beyond the tiresome political debates of today. Pick up the "Summa Theologica" and see for yourself. This is thinking things out to their ultimate conclusion, point by point. I found a copy of the book in the Free Bin at the library many years ago. I only made it through a dozen pages because it's so incredibly dense with repetitive logical verbiage, but suffice it to say that Aquinas would smoke any trial lawyer living today. Reading his statements, you literally can't argue with what he is saying. The same is basically true with Oswald Spengler, although in his case opinion gets in the way of pure logic. Still, his pamphlet is worth reading, if you've ever felt alienated, or pulled along in the unrelenting current, of this thing we call "progress". Spengler was a genius thinker himself. He conceived of what he called "the Armed Hand" as the first example of modern man's technology. Spengler starts with the hand itself, with it's unique shape and opposable thumb, and proposes that all subsequent technology (the root of which means "touch") arises from Man's realisation of the capabilities of his hand, coupled with the animal instincts of his mind. He takes this all the way to the invention of nuclear weapons.

Spengler's view is very cynical, and I do not agree with his final conclusions, but I strongly recommend this short work, "Man and Technics", because like the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, his ideas are so brilliantly argued. You can read it in two days, and if nothing else, it will make you think about the world we are living in. /////

That's all for tonight. See you in the morning. Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)