Note: I began this blog last night but didn't finish because I was too tired. I had actually written a fair amount, but when I read back it I saw that most of it was a political tirade, and other than the occasional comment or one-liner, I don't want to include politics in my blogs. Everyone knows how I feel and what my opinions are, so I will leave the tirades to the professionals and keep this blog dedicated to the arts and weird stuff (and sometimes dumb stuff too). Therefore, what I wrote last night has been edited down, and I am filling the empty space with impromptu musings from tonight. The blog will be a mishmash, then, but it's all I've got because tonight I went over to Grimsley's and have no movie to review. By tomorrow, several new motion pictures will be in hand and all will be well. But for now........
(from 5/20/2019) Tonight I am listening to a symphony by Anton Bruckner while I write, having gone through all the Mahler symphonies during the past couple of weeks. Bruckner was supposed to be a major symphonist, so I thought I'd give him a try. This is his 8th Symphony and it's pretty bombastic, with lots of brass, but it still has some lovely, dramatic string interludes that sound similar to Wagner and Mahler, the kind of sweeping, emotional music that you might hear in a melodramatic movie by Douglas Sirk. Lately I'm on a symphonic kick, and on the lookout for new material, so this week it'll be Bruckner, conducted by Herbert von Karajan if possible. He was one of the greatest conductors who ever lived. No one could make an orchestra sound smoother. Everything he conducted has a velvety quality.
Well anyhow, listen to a symphony if you feel like it. It doesn't have to be a big deal, or something that feels pretentious. It's just music, and you might find that you like it. Pick a composer, any composer, and get started. :)
This afternoon I began a new book : "Solving 9/11 - The Deception That Changed The World" by Christopher Bollyn. I am always looking for interesting 9/11 books that I've not yet read. There aren't many of them these days, because - unlike, say, the JFK assassination - researchers seem to have given up on 9/11 for the most part. This book by Bollyn actually was published in 2012, so even it is already seven years old. I knew it was controversial when I bought it, even among "alternative" 9/11 theories, because Bollyn's central premise is that the government of Israel played a main role in planning and executing the attacks. Specifically he names Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad (their version of the CIA).
It is decidedly non-PC to blame Israel for anything, even though they have a right wing that is even more reactionary than our own and a high tech military that pounds down the hapless Palestinians on a regular basis. But it is common knowledge that, if you say anything against the far right Israeli government, you will be labeled as anti-semitic. This is the plight of Christopher Bollyn and his book.
Me, I don't subscribe to politically correct baloney. Regarding crimes, of which 9/11 certainly was, any given theory is either true or it isn't. And since it is 100% clear that the American government's theory is a deliberate lie, then the truth must be searched for elsewhere. I am only 25 pages into the book, but the first evidence Bollyn presents for Mossad involvement is the arrest and detainment of five young Israeli men who were caught celebrating the attacks on the World Trade Center shortly after the planes hit the buildings. A woman in an apartment called police when she noticed the men standing atop their van, filming the disaster and high-fiving one another. They were dancing and celebrating, she said. This was in the news for a day or two but then was quickly forgotten. But research shows, and video is available on Youtube, that these young men, who were Israeli citizens living in NYC, "worked" for a "moving company" in the city that turned out to be a Mossad front. This is not speculation but confirmed fact. The Youtube video is available that shows the young men being interviewed on Israeli televison after they were let go by the FBI and deported back to their home country. On camera, one of the men says that it was their job to "document" the event. And they celebrated it. That much is fact, as reported by the eyewitness who called the cops, and the FBI who felt it was reason enough to hold the men for several weeks.
Later on, their Mossad connections were revealed, and it was clear that they had foreknowledge of the attacks. It was also revealed that an Israeli owned text messaging service called Odigo sent out a text warning Israeli citizens who worked in the towers that "something big" was going to happen that day, and that they should not come to work.
This is as far as I have read in the book, and it is information that I was already aware of from years past, due to my ongoing research of the covered-up events that have happened in my lifetime, but author Bollyn lays out the details of what happened with the Israeli celebrants so that the reader can understand how their complicity in the attacks and their involvement with Mossad was corroborated.
From what I am reading, I think it is pretty clear that Mossad was involved in the attacks. It has been researched and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the government of Israel was behind the coverup of their military's 1967 attack on the USS Liberty, which killed 34 American sailors. We are supposed to be allies, the United States and Israel, but in real life there have been demonic incidents of terrorism, like the Liberty attack, that suggest otherwise. You can read all about it in Philip Nelson's book "Remember The Liberty", which leaves no doubt about what happened.
However, as Nelson points out, Israel could never initiate an attack on the United States without our own blessings. In Nelson's book, he lays out in detail how the Liberty attack was masterminded by Lyndon Johnson, to be used for his benefit as a false flag incident, similar to what he used in the Gulf Of Tonkin to start the Vietnam War. Hitler was a genius at this tactic; you burn your own building down (the Bundestag) and blame it on your enemy.
In the case of the USS Liberty, Israel carried out the attack, but it was ordered by the President of The United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, a maniac. He ordered his own ship to be sunk and had Israeli forces carry it out. This is proven, and so it is no stretch to say that the Israelis could have once again agreed to help another President carry out mass murder on 9/11, and there is no doubt they did so. But they didn't order it or mastermind it, because in the end they are a small country dependent on our defense dollars.
Nonetheless, they have a precision military armed to the teeth with US technology, and it is clear that they have acted as lap dogs to help sociopathic US regimes, such as LBJ and Bush 2, carry out mass murder against the American people. ////
That's all I have to say about that, though I could say a lot more.
Just as I encourage you to listen to classical music, so as not to limit yourself, I also encourage you to read well-researched books about the subjects I have mentioned in this blog and in others that I have written about over the years. I think it is very important for folks to learn the truth about things, otherwise.......well, what do you think "otherwise" could come down to?
You should ask yourself that question.
I am not saying you should protest, or rant and rave and join the far left or far right, but just that you should read, and that you should read only the most well researched books available, and none that are on the bestseller lists, written by members of the mainstream media. You would be wasting your time, for instance, to read a book about the Iraq war written by a New York Times or Washington Post reporter, because such a book is going to parrot the official line, even if the author is "against the war".
Stay away from mainstream media reporting, because you will only get "two sides of the same coin" phoney baloney spin, courtesy of the CIA, which controls the media in this country.
That's the truth, disbelieve it at your peril, so do some reading for yourself and don't be lazy (if you are so inclined).
That's all I know for tonight. This blog turned out to be a political mishmash anyway, despite my efforts to the contrary, but tomorrow night I will have some movies to watch and things will be more pleasant.
But read those books. I could suggest dozens. ////
See you in the morning. Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
Monday, May 20, 2019
Hugh Everett III & The "Many Worlds" Theory + Mark Everett
I'd like to start off with a little bit more about the Hugh Everett book I just finished. He was a high-level genius in the science of quantum mechanics (QM), and when he was only 27 years old and a graduate student at Princeton, he came up with a mathematical formula that explained away the notorious "measurement paradox" in QM, which states that just by simply taking a measurement of any kind in a quantum system, you are causing the wave function to collapse and appear as a particle instead. The wave function, in rough terms, would be the ultra-microscopic "behind the scenes" version of the particle as it exists on the other side of the wall of reality. By making an observation - i.e. taking a measurement with a metering device - you are causing the wave to disappear so that only a particle is present, the particle being the lone object that exists on this side of reality, the side we see in everyday life, which physicists call the "classical" or macroscopic side.
Now, I haven't the time nor inclination tonight to attempt to go into a long layman's explanation of my own interpretation of what I've read in the book, so to simplify matters I will just say that Hugh Everett took a radical stance against what was generally accepted in QM at the time, which was the Collapse Postulate. This axiom was held as truth by the giants of quantum theory, including Neils Bohr, who was like the God of QM. The physicists of the day could not explain why, in experiments, light beams consisting of photons sometime behaved like particles and sometimes like waves. You can Google all of this stuff if you wish, but anyway, what Everett did that was so revolutionary was that he denied the Collapse Postulate. He had worked out the math, and he presented his theory to his professor, John Wheeler - one of the fathers of the hydrogen bomb - and he said that there is no measurement problem, because the wave doesn't collapse. Instead - and this is important - the observer (meaning The Measurer and his measuring instrument) is part of the wave. When everything is broken down to the quantum level, all quantum systems (meaning spinning particles) are entangled with one another, and thus the entire Universe is one gigantic entangled system. There is also a condition called "superposition", in which like systems are piled upon or behind one another, like ocean waves coming in to shore one at a time. From a frog's point of view, he would only see the wave in front, but a bird would see all the successive waves lined up behind the first one.
This is my "beyond-ultra-simplified" and 0.0001% super brief explanation of Hugh Everett III's "Relative States" theory, written in 1957, which was renamed the "Many Worlds Theory" much later in the 70s or 80s (I forget which) by another physicist after the death of Everett. In short, Everett's theory stated that, first of all, the universe does not need an observer to exist. Many leading QM physicists thought otherwise (though I myself, a non-physicist, agree with Everett). I have always taken the position of a proverbial Rock Sitting In Chatsworth Park for 80 Million Years. Does that rock need me to look at it, for it to exist?
Simply put, the answer is no. That rock would still be sitting there existing even if there were no humans or any other conscious beings to observe it. That's just common sense and you don't need to be a QM genius to see that clearly. But a lot of these guys were so far out there, they thought that the existence of the universe depended, in part, upon conscious observation. Hugh Everett said no. But where his math went way off the charts was when he declared that observation does indeed produce an unusual effect on the wave function, which he believed to be all-encompassing. He believed that underlying All Reality was what he called the Universal Wave Function, everything entangled in one gigantic vibrating wave. And he believed, due to his mathematics, that if a particular observer took a measurement of the wave function from their tiny, relative space inside the wave function, that it caused the branch of reality they were living in (i.e, the Universe), to split off instantaneously into differentiating "universe branches" that encompassed every single physical possibility of a given situation. Think of coming to a fork in the road; what happens if you turn left instead of right? In Everett's system, you turn both ways, and every other way possible, into innumerably differing futures, just by making the decision to turn one single way.
Now, the You that turned a particular way is the only You that You know. But all the other versions of You exist, too. You never see them or interact with them, but according to Hugh Everett, those versions of You and the Universes they live in are just as real as this one that the "You" you know is living in right now.
All of this has to do also with the notion of probability and statistical calculations. When you came to the fork in the road, why did you decide to turn left and not right? What makes a particle move one way and not another, and can it be predicted which way it would move again if the experiment were repeated? Or if you drove to the fork again, would you still turn left? Or would you turn right this time? Everett's probabilistic math, combined with the enormity of the Universal Wave Function, says that - at some point - you (and the particle) would turn every way that is possible, and that the relative angle or perspective in the Universal Wave that you are observing from, and are entangled with, is causing a splitting effect every nanosecond of your life, resulting in uncountable split-off Universes that you are theoretically living in, in other versions of yourself.
I will shut up now, but this was Hugh Everett's vision, and he apparently had the math to back it up. Neils Bohr didn't buy it, and the Many Worlds Theory went unrecognised for decades. Everett himself died in 1982 at the age of only 52. He was a hedonist and a swinger in his personal life, a very unusual character, and he smoked, drank and ate to excess. But as the years went on, other QM physicists began to pick up on his theory. Some tried to improve it, to work out bugs that has caused giants like Bohr to disregard it. Now, according the the book's author Peter Byrne, Everett's theory has gained enough creedence in mainstream QM circles as to not only be taken seriously, but to be accepted as the most likely explanation for the reality of the Universe, that our Universe is merely one of an uncountable number due to a splitting or mirroring effect caused by observation and due to the entanglement of all of our particles with the environment that we live in.
Hugh Everett had a son named Mark. It was because Mark had all his father's papers stored in his basement that this book was made possible. Mark Everett is a musician who became famous in the 1990s as the leader of a band called The Eels. It was really his musical enterprise, he wrote all the songs and sang them. He called himself "E" (for Everett), hence the band name "Eels". The book came about because he had his Dad's papers, but the other factor is that his Dad's life was in part a tragedy. This is recounted in full in the book. Hugh Everett's excesses had a tremendously detrimental effect on his family, a story that becomes harrowing for Mark, and one that I will leave you to discover for yourself.
Though I had heard of The Eels right around the time they came out, about twenty five years ago, I had never and still have not heard any of their music (meaning Mark's music), just because it would not be my style. After 55 years of being a fan of rock music, I can tell the bands I will like. But I always remembered this guy who called himself "E". I can remember him from way back, because his image, in photographs, was so walled-off. It was like "E" had created a fortress to hide behind. He had a huge black beard, way before Millenials made them a fad, he wore dark avaitor sunglasses in every picture, and he often had a big fat cigar in his hand or mouth.
He would have been a musician I would only have encountered in perusing a newspaper or magazine, but in looking back, I remember thinking, "what's the deal with this guy"? It looks like he's hiding behind something. He's got a One Letter Name. He's got an extremely forbidding image (big cigar, beard, shades, et al), and so what's his deal"?
After reading the book about his Dad, I now now what the deal is. It is also important to know what his Dad did for a living, which was to "war game" the possibilities for winning a nuclear war. Hugh Everett made his living in this way, and the chapters in the book that are devoted to this subject are downright terrifying.
Now I will stop, but I really did want to write about this book, and about Hugh Everett (and Mark), because the Everett story is a fascinating and important one.
Hugh Everett, like many scientists, was an Atheist. To me, that is like being a technically adept musician, one who knows music theory inside out but who can't hear the magic of the notes. Someone who thinks that the mathematical relationships of the chord progressions is the magic, instead of simply feeling the emotional beauty of music and knowing instinctively, without question, that it must come from something larger than ourselves.
I could write all day about my bewilderment with the atheism of scientists. To me, God - whatever God is - is so obvious that even if you were unconscious you'd be aware of God, let alone when hearing music, or when contemplating the Universe.
But these scientists love their math, and they are geniuses at it, no doubt. In Hugh Everett's case, he was a math genius and even an intuitive genius of a rare sort, but he still couldn't get past the numbers and the statistics to see something larger. ////
That's all I know for tonight. I did watch a "Ghost Story", and it was Beyond Scary, but I got so carried away with writing about Mr. Everett that I will have to let it pass for now. We did have good singing in church this morning, and I hope you had a great day.
I will see you in the morning with tons of love sent to you through the night. xoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Now, I haven't the time nor inclination tonight to attempt to go into a long layman's explanation of my own interpretation of what I've read in the book, so to simplify matters I will just say that Hugh Everett took a radical stance against what was generally accepted in QM at the time, which was the Collapse Postulate. This axiom was held as truth by the giants of quantum theory, including Neils Bohr, who was like the God of QM. The physicists of the day could not explain why, in experiments, light beams consisting of photons sometime behaved like particles and sometimes like waves. You can Google all of this stuff if you wish, but anyway, what Everett did that was so revolutionary was that he denied the Collapse Postulate. He had worked out the math, and he presented his theory to his professor, John Wheeler - one of the fathers of the hydrogen bomb - and he said that there is no measurement problem, because the wave doesn't collapse. Instead - and this is important - the observer (meaning The Measurer and his measuring instrument) is part of the wave. When everything is broken down to the quantum level, all quantum systems (meaning spinning particles) are entangled with one another, and thus the entire Universe is one gigantic entangled system. There is also a condition called "superposition", in which like systems are piled upon or behind one another, like ocean waves coming in to shore one at a time. From a frog's point of view, he would only see the wave in front, but a bird would see all the successive waves lined up behind the first one.
This is my "beyond-ultra-simplified" and 0.0001% super brief explanation of Hugh Everett III's "Relative States" theory, written in 1957, which was renamed the "Many Worlds Theory" much later in the 70s or 80s (I forget which) by another physicist after the death of Everett. In short, Everett's theory stated that, first of all, the universe does not need an observer to exist. Many leading QM physicists thought otherwise (though I myself, a non-physicist, agree with Everett). I have always taken the position of a proverbial Rock Sitting In Chatsworth Park for 80 Million Years. Does that rock need me to look at it, for it to exist?
Simply put, the answer is no. That rock would still be sitting there existing even if there were no humans or any other conscious beings to observe it. That's just common sense and you don't need to be a QM genius to see that clearly. But a lot of these guys were so far out there, they thought that the existence of the universe depended, in part, upon conscious observation. Hugh Everett said no. But where his math went way off the charts was when he declared that observation does indeed produce an unusual effect on the wave function, which he believed to be all-encompassing. He believed that underlying All Reality was what he called the Universal Wave Function, everything entangled in one gigantic vibrating wave. And he believed, due to his mathematics, that if a particular observer took a measurement of the wave function from their tiny, relative space inside the wave function, that it caused the branch of reality they were living in (i.e, the Universe), to split off instantaneously into differentiating "universe branches" that encompassed every single physical possibility of a given situation. Think of coming to a fork in the road; what happens if you turn left instead of right? In Everett's system, you turn both ways, and every other way possible, into innumerably differing futures, just by making the decision to turn one single way.
Now, the You that turned a particular way is the only You that You know. But all the other versions of You exist, too. You never see them or interact with them, but according to Hugh Everett, those versions of You and the Universes they live in are just as real as this one that the "You" you know is living in right now.
All of this has to do also with the notion of probability and statistical calculations. When you came to the fork in the road, why did you decide to turn left and not right? What makes a particle move one way and not another, and can it be predicted which way it would move again if the experiment were repeated? Or if you drove to the fork again, would you still turn left? Or would you turn right this time? Everett's probabilistic math, combined with the enormity of the Universal Wave Function, says that - at some point - you (and the particle) would turn every way that is possible, and that the relative angle or perspective in the Universal Wave that you are observing from, and are entangled with, is causing a splitting effect every nanosecond of your life, resulting in uncountable split-off Universes that you are theoretically living in, in other versions of yourself.
I will shut up now, but this was Hugh Everett's vision, and he apparently had the math to back it up. Neils Bohr didn't buy it, and the Many Worlds Theory went unrecognised for decades. Everett himself died in 1982 at the age of only 52. He was a hedonist and a swinger in his personal life, a very unusual character, and he smoked, drank and ate to excess. But as the years went on, other QM physicists began to pick up on his theory. Some tried to improve it, to work out bugs that has caused giants like Bohr to disregard it. Now, according the the book's author Peter Byrne, Everett's theory has gained enough creedence in mainstream QM circles as to not only be taken seriously, but to be accepted as the most likely explanation for the reality of the Universe, that our Universe is merely one of an uncountable number due to a splitting or mirroring effect caused by observation and due to the entanglement of all of our particles with the environment that we live in.
Hugh Everett had a son named Mark. It was because Mark had all his father's papers stored in his basement that this book was made possible. Mark Everett is a musician who became famous in the 1990s as the leader of a band called The Eels. It was really his musical enterprise, he wrote all the songs and sang them. He called himself "E" (for Everett), hence the band name "Eels". The book came about because he had his Dad's papers, but the other factor is that his Dad's life was in part a tragedy. This is recounted in full in the book. Hugh Everett's excesses had a tremendously detrimental effect on his family, a story that becomes harrowing for Mark, and one that I will leave you to discover for yourself.
Though I had heard of The Eels right around the time they came out, about twenty five years ago, I had never and still have not heard any of their music (meaning Mark's music), just because it would not be my style. After 55 years of being a fan of rock music, I can tell the bands I will like. But I always remembered this guy who called himself "E". I can remember him from way back, because his image, in photographs, was so walled-off. It was like "E" had created a fortress to hide behind. He had a huge black beard, way before Millenials made them a fad, he wore dark avaitor sunglasses in every picture, and he often had a big fat cigar in his hand or mouth.
He would have been a musician I would only have encountered in perusing a newspaper or magazine, but in looking back, I remember thinking, "what's the deal with this guy"? It looks like he's hiding behind something. He's got a One Letter Name. He's got an extremely forbidding image (big cigar, beard, shades, et al), and so what's his deal"?
After reading the book about his Dad, I now now what the deal is. It is also important to know what his Dad did for a living, which was to "war game" the possibilities for winning a nuclear war. Hugh Everett made his living in this way, and the chapters in the book that are devoted to this subject are downright terrifying.
Now I will stop, but I really did want to write about this book, and about Hugh Everett (and Mark), because the Everett story is a fascinating and important one.
Hugh Everett, like many scientists, was an Atheist. To me, that is like being a technically adept musician, one who knows music theory inside out but who can't hear the magic of the notes. Someone who thinks that the mathematical relationships of the chord progressions is the magic, instead of simply feeling the emotional beauty of music and knowing instinctively, without question, that it must come from something larger than ourselves.
I could write all day about my bewilderment with the atheism of scientists. To me, God - whatever God is - is so obvious that even if you were unconscious you'd be aware of God, let alone when hearing music, or when contemplating the Universe.
But these scientists love their math, and they are geniuses at it, no doubt. In Hugh Everett's case, he was a math genius and even an intuitive genius of a rare sort, but he still couldn't get past the numbers and the statistics to see something larger. ////
That's all I know for tonight. I did watch a "Ghost Story", and it was Beyond Scary, but I got so carried away with writing about Mr. Everett that I will have to let it pass for now. We did have good singing in church this morning, and I hope you had a great day.
I will see you in the morning with tons of love sent to you through the night. xoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, May 19, 2019
"Tales Of Tomorrow" starring Lee J. Cobb + King's X + Hugh Everett III
Tonight was a TV night, with an episode of "High Chaparral" followed by a "Tales Of Tomorrow". In the latter show, Lee J. Cobb is the multimillionaire head of an undetermined company. He is Bill Gates Rich, and he has a dream to be the first man in space. The year is 1951, so the launch of Sputnik is still six years away and it will be ten years til Yuri Gagarin actually does become the first man. But Cobb is determined to do it in 1951 and he's got the dough to make it happen. He is typical Lee J. Cobb in this show - loudmouthed, broadshouldered, smoking a cigar.....and being a great actor. Except at the very beginning of the show, and this is both interesting and funny. "Tales" was run live, as were many shows of the early TV era, meaning that the show was happening as the home audience was watching it, just like a play. But unlike a play, it seems that the actors on this show may not have had much time to rehearse, because lines are occasionally flubbed. This happens to Lee J. Cobb right after the episode begins. An onscreen map of outer space is showing the troposphere with the ring of the stratosphere above it. Cobb is describing to his accountant how his proposed rocket will blast through the upper layers of the atmosphere and into space, but he flubs his lines so badly that there are multiple pauses in the dialogue. The screen is showing "troposphere" but Cobb can't get the word out of his mouth, so he eventually just bypasses it and chucks that whole section of his speech.
It's mildly amusing to see, but moreso it is indicative of the live nature of early television. Most of the actors on these episodes (I've seen three so far) have been thoroughly prepared, but a few, like Cobb, may have come into the studio thinking they could wing it, and it didn't work out that way.
Having said that, he quickly recovered and was great, in typical Lee J. Cobb fashion (bullying people, throwing his weight around) for the rest of the show. He is confronted by his accountant (who would be called a comptroller nowdays) about his spending of the company's funds. Cobb has already allocated millions for the rocket itself, and now he is mortgaging the future of the company by selling off it's stock to raise 100 million more to devise an engine and the required fuel type. They have to go to the freakin' Congo to get some of the minerals. And the show is only a half hour long.
Cobb is like Trump. Things have to be his way or else. And he's loaded, and financially reckless. His ego is all that matters to him. Finally a scientist appears who can build him the proper engine for his rocket. The guy says he is from London, but he seems a little squirrely. He doesn't have any models for his engine, or any mathematical presentation. All he does is to show Cobb the properties of magnetism by pulling out two magnets and then placing them "pole opposite" and "pole similar". The opposites attract and the similars push apart. This is his formula for rocket propulsion, and it's pretty trippy for 1951 because it would be many decades before the theory of electrogravitics, as devised by T. Townsend Brown, made it into the mainstream science conversation. Long story short, Cobb hires this weird guy to build his engine and formulate the fuel for it, but the guy has two conditions : 1) That he be left alone to do his work (which is very hard for a meddler like Cobb), and 2) That he be allowed to pilot the test flight of the rocket. The guy seems to know his stuff, so Cobb agrees to his terms. Meanwhile, his accountant and the board of directors are cracking down, threatening to cut off the funding of the project and even to force Cobb out of the company.
Finally, the rocket is built and all systems are go. It is Zero Hour on the launch pad, and despite last minute pressure from the board members, Cobb is ready to head out into space. As he puts it, all the expenditure has been worth it, because he "will soon own the world". He is truly Trumpian in his megalomania.
However, there is a twist after the rocket is launched and has passed through the ionosphere. Cobb and his pilot are now the first men in space, but........(omg and holy smokes)......
I guessed what was gonna happen and you might, too, but man, you've gotta see this show!
I recommend that you order you the entire "Tales Of Tomorrow : Collection One" from Amazon. If you love 1950's Sci-Fi as much as I do you won't be disappointed. These shows really push the boundaries, they were made just six years after Hiroshima and the end of WW2, and at the same time as the world emerged into the Space Age. The scripts are fearless and non-PC. Political correctness wouldn't even have been a concern in so dangerous a time, and a guy like Trump would have had his ass handed to him before he had a chance to establish himself, unlike today in our pussyfooting times of "let's not impeach him".
Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a Trump tangent, but yeah, this is such a great show that you've gotta see it. And I didn't mean to shortchange "High Chaparral" because that show is a Western of the highest order, with motion picture caliber acting and production values. But I've already described so many Western scenarios that I thought I'd give the more edgy "Tales Of Tomorrow" episode the featured write up here. ///
I finished two books today : "King's X, The Oral History", which is one of the most comprehensive books I've ever read about any band. If you are even a marginal fan of KX you should read it. Certain music by certain people can change your life. My life was permanently changed by this band. For their first six albums they are as great as The Beatles, and I say that about no one else.
Listen to King's X. ////
The other book I finished was "The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III". Last year I began reading about "eccentric physicists" with the extraordinary biography of Paul Dirac, and this year I have read the story of Hugh Everett and what became known after his death as the "Many Worlds" theory. This book has been incredibly interesting because it covers Everett's personal life and that of his family as well as giving a comprehensive revue of his theory, and so much more.
I'd like to go into it just a little bit further tomorrow night, if I am not too tired.
For tonight, I send you love and I will sign off because I have church in the morning.
See you there. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
It's mildly amusing to see, but moreso it is indicative of the live nature of early television. Most of the actors on these episodes (I've seen three so far) have been thoroughly prepared, but a few, like Cobb, may have come into the studio thinking they could wing it, and it didn't work out that way.
Having said that, he quickly recovered and was great, in typical Lee J. Cobb fashion (bullying people, throwing his weight around) for the rest of the show. He is confronted by his accountant (who would be called a comptroller nowdays) about his spending of the company's funds. Cobb has already allocated millions for the rocket itself, and now he is mortgaging the future of the company by selling off it's stock to raise 100 million more to devise an engine and the required fuel type. They have to go to the freakin' Congo to get some of the minerals. And the show is only a half hour long.
Cobb is like Trump. Things have to be his way or else. And he's loaded, and financially reckless. His ego is all that matters to him. Finally a scientist appears who can build him the proper engine for his rocket. The guy says he is from London, but he seems a little squirrely. He doesn't have any models for his engine, or any mathematical presentation. All he does is to show Cobb the properties of magnetism by pulling out two magnets and then placing them "pole opposite" and "pole similar". The opposites attract and the similars push apart. This is his formula for rocket propulsion, and it's pretty trippy for 1951 because it would be many decades before the theory of electrogravitics, as devised by T. Townsend Brown, made it into the mainstream science conversation. Long story short, Cobb hires this weird guy to build his engine and formulate the fuel for it, but the guy has two conditions : 1) That he be left alone to do his work (which is very hard for a meddler like Cobb), and 2) That he be allowed to pilot the test flight of the rocket. The guy seems to know his stuff, so Cobb agrees to his terms. Meanwhile, his accountant and the board of directors are cracking down, threatening to cut off the funding of the project and even to force Cobb out of the company.
Finally, the rocket is built and all systems are go. It is Zero Hour on the launch pad, and despite last minute pressure from the board members, Cobb is ready to head out into space. As he puts it, all the expenditure has been worth it, because he "will soon own the world". He is truly Trumpian in his megalomania.
However, there is a twist after the rocket is launched and has passed through the ionosphere. Cobb and his pilot are now the first men in space, but........(omg and holy smokes)......
I guessed what was gonna happen and you might, too, but man, you've gotta see this show!
I recommend that you order you the entire "Tales Of Tomorrow : Collection One" from Amazon. If you love 1950's Sci-Fi as much as I do you won't be disappointed. These shows really push the boundaries, they were made just six years after Hiroshima and the end of WW2, and at the same time as the world emerged into the Space Age. The scripts are fearless and non-PC. Political correctness wouldn't even have been a concern in so dangerous a time, and a guy like Trump would have had his ass handed to him before he had a chance to establish himself, unlike today in our pussyfooting times of "let's not impeach him".
Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a Trump tangent, but yeah, this is such a great show that you've gotta see it. And I didn't mean to shortchange "High Chaparral" because that show is a Western of the highest order, with motion picture caliber acting and production values. But I've already described so many Western scenarios that I thought I'd give the more edgy "Tales Of Tomorrow" episode the featured write up here. ///
I finished two books today : "King's X, The Oral History", which is one of the most comprehensive books I've ever read about any band. If you are even a marginal fan of KX you should read it. Certain music by certain people can change your life. My life was permanently changed by this band. For their first six albums they are as great as The Beatles, and I say that about no one else.
Listen to King's X. ////
The other book I finished was "The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III". Last year I began reading about "eccentric physicists" with the extraordinary biography of Paul Dirac, and this year I have read the story of Hugh Everett and what became known after his death as the "Many Worlds" theory. This book has been incredibly interesting because it covers Everett's personal life and that of his family as well as giving a comprehensive revue of his theory, and so much more.
I'd like to go into it just a little bit further tomorrow night, if I am not too tired.
For tonight, I send you love and I will sign off because I have church in the morning.
See you there. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Saturday, May 18, 2019
"Murder In The Private Car" starring Charles Ruggles and Una Merkel + Early Movies & Movie Stars
Tonight I watched an early Hollywood comedy called "Murder In The Private Car" (1934), starring Charles Ruggles and Una Merkel. I found this flick in my recent search for "Warner Archives" titles, and though it is an entertainment picture and strictly for fun, I found it to be a gem, another of the little known treasures I have discovered in recent weeks (like "Soldier In The Rain").
Mary Carlisle and Una Merkel are two platinum blonde cuties, 1930s style, who are stuck working the switchboard for an undisclosed company in Los Angeles. Like all '30s chicks, they can talk a blue streak but are bored silly with the job. Suddenly, the boss calls Miss Carlisle into his office. A lawyer is present. He informs her that she is the long lost daughter of the sixth wealthiest man in the country. My goodness and Holy Smokerinos, folks! She can't believe her good fortune, but the lawyer urges caution. He tells her that her father - whom she thought was dead - has arranged for her to take a train trip to New York, accompanied by the lawyer, where he will meet the two of them and introduce his daughter to her new life of wealth. She is excited to go, and takes her fun loving and vivacious pal Merkel with her.
Lurking on the sidelines is the dithering Charlie Ruggles, a mumble-mouthed double talking comedian with a style that surely must've influenced guys like the late Tim Conway and the actor who played "Hank Kimball" on "Green Acres". Ruggles is a riot, playing what you would call a competent nitwit.
He claims to be onboard the train to protect Miss Carlisle, stating his profession as a crime "deflector" rather than a detective. Ruggles and Una Merkel were comedic pros of the highest level who could talk so fast and say so many things under their breath that in this case tonight I had to hit the pause button a few times and replay a line of dialogue so I didn't miss anything.
The movie is only 63 minutes long, so I'll not give a blow-by-blow account, but I enjoyed it from start to finish. There wasn't a dull moment in the film. On one hand, it is the type of Old Hollywood Whodunit, a storyline for mystery movies that was in use during the early days when camera techniques were still being developed, and location shooting was limited. In those days, it was easier to just group everyone into a single setting, like an old mansion or a train, and then let the "whodunit" mystery play itself out. And this is what happens here. But you have a train wreck up ahead, of a circus train, that comes out of nowhere and all of a sudden our group has to deal with an escaped gorilla. So the movie has a zany aspect, where you don't know what will happen next.
There is of course a killer on board, a saboteur who wants to prevent Mary Carlisle from reuniting with her father. He makes his presence felt at random times, in ways that terrify the young ladies. The story provides us with a handful of suspects, a device that was often used in the "roomful of people" crime scenario that I described above. You may be able to guess whodunit, but it's more fun to not try, just let it play out instead. The best part of the whole movie is the last fifteen minutes, which unfolds in a spectacular way, especially considering the era in which the film was made. I don't want to reveal too much, but I did mention a saboteur (did I not?)........
So the ending will result in a very effective, suspenseful and well edited train sequence reminiscent of the movie "Speed". The reminiscence should actually be the other way around, because "Murder In A Private Car" was made sixty years earlier, and is now 85 years old.
I found myself thinking, "Boy, I'll bet that one made a lot of money", just because it was so well done from beginning to end. The goal of Early Hollywood was to entertain and get people into the theater to see and hear these new "sound" pictures. I mean, the goal has always been to entertain and sell tickets, but in the early days, the actors were often veterans of the stage, and so their performances had an immediacy, a live feel, that added excitement and energy to what was often a formulaic story. It is sometimes said that the actors of today are the best ever, because they are trained in Method and portray realistic and therefore recognizable characters, and there is some truth to that argument.
But it is also true to say that the actors of yesteryear were incredibly talented in their own right. Many, like Charlie Ruggles or Una Merkel, were professionals who began early in film but who had the comedic timing of stage actors, while others were novices who were chosen for their looks.
But they were making it up as they went along, because movies were a new thing. Even in 1934, the entire art form was only twenty or so years old, and sound films had only existed for five years.
So when you watch these early films and you see the whip-crack comedic timing and line reading, it blows you away if you are really paying attention. I know most folks would just watch as "regular audience" members and not analyse everything, which is fine. I watch all my movies the same way.
But I guess because I grew up with a Hollywood Dad who worked in the business, and then because I worked at MGM myself for a couple of years, I developed an interest in Hollywood movies that has grown over the years, and now I watch as many of the old movies as I can, and I am really appreciating the talents of the early actresses and actors.
In their way, they were equally as talented as the realistic actors of today.
But even more, they were Showbiz People who came from the stage. They knew the whole idea of projecting a performance, of "putting on a show", and in this way, they invented what it means to be a Movie Star.
I love the Movie Stars, and I say God Bless Them for their talent and what they gave to the world by telling stories and entertaining people. They are all gone now, but their movies live on. I didn't discover them until I was about 45 or so, but now I watch one almost every night.
As with classical music, I urge you to give old movies a chance. The style may be something you aren't used to, but - as with classical music - if you give it a chance you just may discover a treasure chest that, once opened, will provide years and years of meaningful pleasure. /////
That's all for tonight. I send you love and will see you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Mary Carlisle and Una Merkel are two platinum blonde cuties, 1930s style, who are stuck working the switchboard for an undisclosed company in Los Angeles. Like all '30s chicks, they can talk a blue streak but are bored silly with the job. Suddenly, the boss calls Miss Carlisle into his office. A lawyer is present. He informs her that she is the long lost daughter of the sixth wealthiest man in the country. My goodness and Holy Smokerinos, folks! She can't believe her good fortune, but the lawyer urges caution. He tells her that her father - whom she thought was dead - has arranged for her to take a train trip to New York, accompanied by the lawyer, where he will meet the two of them and introduce his daughter to her new life of wealth. She is excited to go, and takes her fun loving and vivacious pal Merkel with her.
Lurking on the sidelines is the dithering Charlie Ruggles, a mumble-mouthed double talking comedian with a style that surely must've influenced guys like the late Tim Conway and the actor who played "Hank Kimball" on "Green Acres". Ruggles is a riot, playing what you would call a competent nitwit.
He claims to be onboard the train to protect Miss Carlisle, stating his profession as a crime "deflector" rather than a detective. Ruggles and Una Merkel were comedic pros of the highest level who could talk so fast and say so many things under their breath that in this case tonight I had to hit the pause button a few times and replay a line of dialogue so I didn't miss anything.
The movie is only 63 minutes long, so I'll not give a blow-by-blow account, but I enjoyed it from start to finish. There wasn't a dull moment in the film. On one hand, it is the type of Old Hollywood Whodunit, a storyline for mystery movies that was in use during the early days when camera techniques were still being developed, and location shooting was limited. In those days, it was easier to just group everyone into a single setting, like an old mansion or a train, and then let the "whodunit" mystery play itself out. And this is what happens here. But you have a train wreck up ahead, of a circus train, that comes out of nowhere and all of a sudden our group has to deal with an escaped gorilla. So the movie has a zany aspect, where you don't know what will happen next.
There is of course a killer on board, a saboteur who wants to prevent Mary Carlisle from reuniting with her father. He makes his presence felt at random times, in ways that terrify the young ladies. The story provides us with a handful of suspects, a device that was often used in the "roomful of people" crime scenario that I described above. You may be able to guess whodunit, but it's more fun to not try, just let it play out instead. The best part of the whole movie is the last fifteen minutes, which unfolds in a spectacular way, especially considering the era in which the film was made. I don't want to reveal too much, but I did mention a saboteur (did I not?)........
So the ending will result in a very effective, suspenseful and well edited train sequence reminiscent of the movie "Speed". The reminiscence should actually be the other way around, because "Murder In A Private Car" was made sixty years earlier, and is now 85 years old.
I found myself thinking, "Boy, I'll bet that one made a lot of money", just because it was so well done from beginning to end. The goal of Early Hollywood was to entertain and get people into the theater to see and hear these new "sound" pictures. I mean, the goal has always been to entertain and sell tickets, but in the early days, the actors were often veterans of the stage, and so their performances had an immediacy, a live feel, that added excitement and energy to what was often a formulaic story. It is sometimes said that the actors of today are the best ever, because they are trained in Method and portray realistic and therefore recognizable characters, and there is some truth to that argument.
But it is also true to say that the actors of yesteryear were incredibly talented in their own right. Many, like Charlie Ruggles or Una Merkel, were professionals who began early in film but who had the comedic timing of stage actors, while others were novices who were chosen for their looks.
But they were making it up as they went along, because movies were a new thing. Even in 1934, the entire art form was only twenty or so years old, and sound films had only existed for five years.
So when you watch these early films and you see the whip-crack comedic timing and line reading, it blows you away if you are really paying attention. I know most folks would just watch as "regular audience" members and not analyse everything, which is fine. I watch all my movies the same way.
But I guess because I grew up with a Hollywood Dad who worked in the business, and then because I worked at MGM myself for a couple of years, I developed an interest in Hollywood movies that has grown over the years, and now I watch as many of the old movies as I can, and I am really appreciating the talents of the early actresses and actors.
In their way, they were equally as talented as the realistic actors of today.
But even more, they were Showbiz People who came from the stage. They knew the whole idea of projecting a performance, of "putting on a show", and in this way, they invented what it means to be a Movie Star.
I love the Movie Stars, and I say God Bless Them for their talent and what they gave to the world by telling stories and entertaining people. They are all gone now, but their movies live on. I didn't discover them until I was about 45 or so, but now I watch one almost every night.
As with classical music, I urge you to give old movies a chance. The style may be something you aren't used to, but - as with classical music - if you give it a chance you just may discover a treasure chest that, once opened, will provide years and years of meaningful pleasure. /////
That's all for tonight. I send you love and will see you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Friday, May 17, 2019
"The Actress" starring Jean Simmons + The Three Arts Club + Mahler
I've been listening to Mahler symphonies lately while I write these blogs. Tonight is #4, conducted by Leonard Bernstein. Give Mahler a listen if you are so inclined, and definitely listen to his Lieder as sung by Janet Baker. Wow what a voice.
Tonight's movie was called "The Actress" (1953), starring Jean Simmons, Spencer Tracy, Teresa Wright and Anthony Perkins. Now that is a powerhouse cast and it is put to good use by legendary director George Cukor. The movie is based on a play written by an actress named Ruth Gordon, whom modern audiences know from "Rosemary's Baby" and especially the cult film "Harold and Maude". But there was much more to Gordon's career than these two movies, made when she was a senior citizen, and most of it happened in the 1930s. In addiiton to making movies she was a prolific stage actress, and this is what the movie is about, her dream to be on the stage, beginning when she saw the real life thespian Hazel Dawn perform live in a play. Gordon was a teenager when this happened. She was so enamored of Miss Dawn that she wrote her a letter asking for advice on how to become an actress herself. I was surprised to find, upon IMDBing Hazel Dawn, that she was a real person. This adds authenticity to Gordon's story. And Miss Dawn wrote her back, inviting her to her dressing room before a show, so Gordon could observe the actress at work, first hand. This proved to be the turning point in her life, but her dream was nearly derailed because of the acrimony she experienced at home.
The year is 1913. Gordon's full name is Ruth Gordon Jones (her real name). She is played as a free spirit by the talented Jean Simmons. She is 17 and her whole existence is consumed by her desire to act. Her school friends know all about this and so does her supportive Mom (Teresa Wright), but she can't tell her father because he is a practical man who believes in education and work. He had been a sea captain for most of his life but is now reduced to working in a factory for low wages. The family lives in Boston in a small house, barely making ends meet. Spencer Tracy gives an excellent performance as the father. He belongs to a local gymnasium and has connections to get his daughter a job as a phys-ed teacher. He can't understand why she doesn't want to do this. The pay is good. It's a steady job.....
He doesn't understand that his daughter has an artistic soul, so he fights against her desire to move to New York to follow her dream. Later in the movie we will learn more about the father's life, which will explain why he feels this way. This is a dramatic moment in the film which really changes the tone and gives the story some gravity.
I was having a problem with "The Actress" for the first 30 minutes or so, because it seemed too "stagey" for my liking. Spencer Tracy as the father was supposed to be a gruff prick on the surface though kindhearted in soul, but the trouble was that there was way too much dialogue crammed in to every scene and every interaction in the household between Tracy, Wright (playing his wife) and Simmons. Every line was rattled off so fast, and the conversation so filled with early 20th century colloquialisms, that I actually had difficulty following what the actors were saying. I got the gist of it of course, but I wasn't paying rock solid attention because the rapid fire talk and shifting emotionalism made it hard to do so. It felt somewhat like a claustrophobic Woody Allen scenario, where everyone is living in close quarters in a tenement and is slightly bonkers.
Things picked up in the second act, however, when Simmons' prospects for an audition begin to materialize. Anthony Perkins shows up in a classic 1913 Roadster, looking to date Jean Simmons. He is headed off to Harvard and also can't understand why she wouldn't want to simply marry him and follow his prospects. After all, he is a man and this is the way things work. But even in 1913, things were changing for women, and I suppose they always have been. I mean, look at Cleopatra. Women's Lib is nothing new (and because of today's news I should add that the war against women is still going strong, unfortunately). Ruth Gordon's message is a simple and eternal one : never give up on your dreams, for any reason. Period!
Once the histrionics died down and the movie settled into a discernible plot, my attention was restored and I wound up liking it for it's honesty in portraying the artist's predicament in a world dedicated to commerce. How does a creative person proceed when every force in society is set against her?
Ruth Gordon found her answer - creative people survive by aligning with other creative people, and by having heroes to be inspired by, and by believing in the magic of their art.
The message of "The Actress" is wonderful, and it is because of the message and the latter half of the film that I will relent and give it Two Thumbs Up. I was at first only going to give One and a Half Thumbs, but Two Thumbs it is. My heart was also melted when the Ruth Gordon character mentions to her father that she has a room lined up in New York, a place to stay.
This was at The Three Arts Club, which was a chain of Art School Boarding Houses for creatively inclined young women.
My Mom stayed at The Three Arts Club in Cincinnati in the early 1940s. She had been a drama student in high school and might've had acting aspirations. For a young person, it is often difficult to know exactly what one wants to do with their life. Mom was on her own at age 17, having lost both her parents, and she wound up at The Three Arts Club, before getting a job a WLW radio station later on.
She used to Talk about her time at The Three Arts Club a lot, so when I heard it mentioned in the movie, it melted me. That convinced me to give it Two Thumbs, though it is a good film anyway. Just a little hard to follow in the first half hour. ///
That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight's movie was called "The Actress" (1953), starring Jean Simmons, Spencer Tracy, Teresa Wright and Anthony Perkins. Now that is a powerhouse cast and it is put to good use by legendary director George Cukor. The movie is based on a play written by an actress named Ruth Gordon, whom modern audiences know from "Rosemary's Baby" and especially the cult film "Harold and Maude". But there was much more to Gordon's career than these two movies, made when she was a senior citizen, and most of it happened in the 1930s. In addiiton to making movies she was a prolific stage actress, and this is what the movie is about, her dream to be on the stage, beginning when she saw the real life thespian Hazel Dawn perform live in a play. Gordon was a teenager when this happened. She was so enamored of Miss Dawn that she wrote her a letter asking for advice on how to become an actress herself. I was surprised to find, upon IMDBing Hazel Dawn, that she was a real person. This adds authenticity to Gordon's story. And Miss Dawn wrote her back, inviting her to her dressing room before a show, so Gordon could observe the actress at work, first hand. This proved to be the turning point in her life, but her dream was nearly derailed because of the acrimony she experienced at home.
The year is 1913. Gordon's full name is Ruth Gordon Jones (her real name). She is played as a free spirit by the talented Jean Simmons. She is 17 and her whole existence is consumed by her desire to act. Her school friends know all about this and so does her supportive Mom (Teresa Wright), but she can't tell her father because he is a practical man who believes in education and work. He had been a sea captain for most of his life but is now reduced to working in a factory for low wages. The family lives in Boston in a small house, barely making ends meet. Spencer Tracy gives an excellent performance as the father. He belongs to a local gymnasium and has connections to get his daughter a job as a phys-ed teacher. He can't understand why she doesn't want to do this. The pay is good. It's a steady job.....
He doesn't understand that his daughter has an artistic soul, so he fights against her desire to move to New York to follow her dream. Later in the movie we will learn more about the father's life, which will explain why he feels this way. This is a dramatic moment in the film which really changes the tone and gives the story some gravity.
I was having a problem with "The Actress" for the first 30 minutes or so, because it seemed too "stagey" for my liking. Spencer Tracy as the father was supposed to be a gruff prick on the surface though kindhearted in soul, but the trouble was that there was way too much dialogue crammed in to every scene and every interaction in the household between Tracy, Wright (playing his wife) and Simmons. Every line was rattled off so fast, and the conversation so filled with early 20th century colloquialisms, that I actually had difficulty following what the actors were saying. I got the gist of it of course, but I wasn't paying rock solid attention because the rapid fire talk and shifting emotionalism made it hard to do so. It felt somewhat like a claustrophobic Woody Allen scenario, where everyone is living in close quarters in a tenement and is slightly bonkers.
Things picked up in the second act, however, when Simmons' prospects for an audition begin to materialize. Anthony Perkins shows up in a classic 1913 Roadster, looking to date Jean Simmons. He is headed off to Harvard and also can't understand why she wouldn't want to simply marry him and follow his prospects. After all, he is a man and this is the way things work. But even in 1913, things were changing for women, and I suppose they always have been. I mean, look at Cleopatra. Women's Lib is nothing new (and because of today's news I should add that the war against women is still going strong, unfortunately). Ruth Gordon's message is a simple and eternal one : never give up on your dreams, for any reason. Period!
Once the histrionics died down and the movie settled into a discernible plot, my attention was restored and I wound up liking it for it's honesty in portraying the artist's predicament in a world dedicated to commerce. How does a creative person proceed when every force in society is set against her?
Ruth Gordon found her answer - creative people survive by aligning with other creative people, and by having heroes to be inspired by, and by believing in the magic of their art.
The message of "The Actress" is wonderful, and it is because of the message and the latter half of the film that I will relent and give it Two Thumbs Up. I was at first only going to give One and a Half Thumbs, but Two Thumbs it is. My heart was also melted when the Ruth Gordon character mentions to her father that she has a room lined up in New York, a place to stay.
This was at The Three Arts Club, which was a chain of Art School Boarding Houses for creatively inclined young women.
My Mom stayed at The Three Arts Club in Cincinnati in the early 1940s. She had been a drama student in high school and might've had acting aspirations. For a young person, it is often difficult to know exactly what one wants to do with their life. Mom was on her own at age 17, having lost both her parents, and she wound up at The Three Arts Club, before getting a job a WLW radio station later on.
She used to Talk about her time at The Three Arts Club a lot, so when I heard it mentioned in the movie, it melted me. That convinced me to give it Two Thumbs, though it is a good film anyway. Just a little hard to follow in the first half hour. ///
That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Thursday, May 16, 2019
"Museo", an excellent Heist Movie seen at CSUN tonight
Tonight I went back to the Armer Theater at CSUN for the final Cinematheque screening of the semester, of a film called "Museo" (2018), directed by Alonso Ruizpalacios and starring Gael Garcia Bernal. On the surface it is a "heist" picture that tells a fictionalised version of an actual museum robbery in Mexico City in 1985. Thieves broke into an anthropological museum and stole 140 priceless artifacts from the Mayan era.
In the movie, the heist is not the centerpiece, which sets "Museo" apart in it's format from other classics of the genre like "Rififi" or "The Killing". Much of the plot in those films is dedicated to the planning of the crime, which must be meticulous. In "Museo", we are shown no planning at all. Garcia Bernal works briefly at the museum as a photographic assistant and has access to the layout and security procedures, but his plans are kept to himself as he loafs around his parents' house at Christmastime. He is 40 in real life, so I assume his character is meant to be roughly the same age, and he still lives at home. He spends his time playing video games with his nieces and nephews who are over for the holiday, and trading insults with his married older sister who sees him as a washout. Little does she know what is going on inside his head.
Bernal has a friend, a dog groomer who is more responsible than he, but who is also very passive. He is the one person Bernal can boss around and feel superior to. All of a sudden, on Christmas Eve, Bernal calls him up and says "it has to be tonight"! He means the museum robbery, which we have thus far only been given hints of. It has to be tonight because Bernal has just heard on the news that a renovation of the museum is set to begin the day after Christmas. Crews will be constantly on site and their caper will not be possible at that point. So it's Christmas Eve or else. The dog groomer's father is terminally ill and he doesn't want to leave him, but Bernal insists, and he badgers his friend into compliance.
The heist itself is artfully shot and edited (the movie is in widescreen), and features technical tricks that a robber would have to know how to execute in order to pry the artifacts loose from their plexiglass presentation boxes. This whole sequence is great stuff and would fit in even in a "Mission Impossible" movie. It turns out that Gael Garcia Bernal is no dumbell after all.
But he is immature, and this is what the movie is really about. The heist takes place early on. But now what? What are these two crafty but shiftless young men gonna do now that they've gotten away with their crime and have this irreplaceable loot in their possession? The heist is all over the news and the cultural community is aghast at the loss. The young men have a fence who has ostensibly agreed to help them, but he also has to be pressured to honor his commitment. The fence knows a wealthy patron of the arts who may want to buy the artifacts. Maybe.
He turns out to be a middle aged expatriate English prick with a seaside estate. The guys are in over their heads trying to do business with him. He tells them what should have been obvious, that their loot is unsellable because of the heat that has come down on the robbery.
Now what are they gonna do? The dog groomer wants to go back home to his ailing father. Bernal tries to berate him once more into continuing on with their attempt to fence the goods, but it doesn't work. The dog groomer leaves and now Bernal is on his own. Unable to work without a foil, he will retreat into a fantasy world, his dream of meeting his favorite movie star (a fading B Actress), that will bring about his downfall.
"Museo" is really a spectacular film, a road movie in a way, and in that respect it works well with Bernal as it's star because of his charisma in other road oriented films such as "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "The Motorcycle Diaries". Also, it is extremely well made in every respect. The cinematography is reminiscent of the European art films of the 1960s, the direction is well paced and the script is layered with underlying commentary on the Mexican class struggle and the whole question of whether or
not museums in and of themselves, as institutions, have the right to display artifacts from past cultures, to displace them from their original locations to show them to the public. This argument is presented with both sides given a fair hearing. Should archaeology be outlawed? If that had happened then all of the treasures discovered to date would still lie under the earth and no one would have ever seen them. We would never have learned about Egyptian culture, for instance. Professor Dianah, who hosted this semester's Cinematheque, summed it up best when she said that maybe the digging isn't the problem but rather that each culture's treasures should be held by their own countries' museums, and I agree with that.
But yes! Two Huge and Gigantic Thumbs Up for "Museo". They are gonna have to add a Fourth Amigo to the trio of Cuaron, Inarritu and Del Toro, and his name is Alfonso Ruizpalacios.
He is as good a filmmaker as the others, and I am glad I went to the Armer tonight to see his film "Museo". I give it my highest recommendation. ////
That's all for tonight. See you in the morning with much love sent as always, in between.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
In the movie, the heist is not the centerpiece, which sets "Museo" apart in it's format from other classics of the genre like "Rififi" or "The Killing". Much of the plot in those films is dedicated to the planning of the crime, which must be meticulous. In "Museo", we are shown no planning at all. Garcia Bernal works briefly at the museum as a photographic assistant and has access to the layout and security procedures, but his plans are kept to himself as he loafs around his parents' house at Christmastime. He is 40 in real life, so I assume his character is meant to be roughly the same age, and he still lives at home. He spends his time playing video games with his nieces and nephews who are over for the holiday, and trading insults with his married older sister who sees him as a washout. Little does she know what is going on inside his head.
Bernal has a friend, a dog groomer who is more responsible than he, but who is also very passive. He is the one person Bernal can boss around and feel superior to. All of a sudden, on Christmas Eve, Bernal calls him up and says "it has to be tonight"! He means the museum robbery, which we have thus far only been given hints of. It has to be tonight because Bernal has just heard on the news that a renovation of the museum is set to begin the day after Christmas. Crews will be constantly on site and their caper will not be possible at that point. So it's Christmas Eve or else. The dog groomer's father is terminally ill and he doesn't want to leave him, but Bernal insists, and he badgers his friend into compliance.
The heist itself is artfully shot and edited (the movie is in widescreen), and features technical tricks that a robber would have to know how to execute in order to pry the artifacts loose from their plexiglass presentation boxes. This whole sequence is great stuff and would fit in even in a "Mission Impossible" movie. It turns out that Gael Garcia Bernal is no dumbell after all.
But he is immature, and this is what the movie is really about. The heist takes place early on. But now what? What are these two crafty but shiftless young men gonna do now that they've gotten away with their crime and have this irreplaceable loot in their possession? The heist is all over the news and the cultural community is aghast at the loss. The young men have a fence who has ostensibly agreed to help them, but he also has to be pressured to honor his commitment. The fence knows a wealthy patron of the arts who may want to buy the artifacts. Maybe.
He turns out to be a middle aged expatriate English prick with a seaside estate. The guys are in over their heads trying to do business with him. He tells them what should have been obvious, that their loot is unsellable because of the heat that has come down on the robbery.
Now what are they gonna do? The dog groomer wants to go back home to his ailing father. Bernal tries to berate him once more into continuing on with their attempt to fence the goods, but it doesn't work. The dog groomer leaves and now Bernal is on his own. Unable to work without a foil, he will retreat into a fantasy world, his dream of meeting his favorite movie star (a fading B Actress), that will bring about his downfall.
"Museo" is really a spectacular film, a road movie in a way, and in that respect it works well with Bernal as it's star because of his charisma in other road oriented films such as "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "The Motorcycle Diaries". Also, it is extremely well made in every respect. The cinematography is reminiscent of the European art films of the 1960s, the direction is well paced and the script is layered with underlying commentary on the Mexican class struggle and the whole question of whether or
not museums in and of themselves, as institutions, have the right to display artifacts from past cultures, to displace them from their original locations to show them to the public. This argument is presented with both sides given a fair hearing. Should archaeology be outlawed? If that had happened then all of the treasures discovered to date would still lie under the earth and no one would have ever seen them. We would never have learned about Egyptian culture, for instance. Professor Dianah, who hosted this semester's Cinematheque, summed it up best when she said that maybe the digging isn't the problem but rather that each culture's treasures should be held by their own countries' museums, and I agree with that.
But yes! Two Huge and Gigantic Thumbs Up for "Museo". They are gonna have to add a Fourth Amigo to the trio of Cuaron, Inarritu and Del Toro, and his name is Alfonso Ruizpalacios.
He is as good a filmmaker as the others, and I am glad I went to the Armer tonight to see his film "Museo". I give it my highest recommendation. ////
That's all for tonight. See you in the morning with much love sent as always, in between.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
"Chain Lightning" starring Humphrey Bogart and Eleanor Parker
Tonight's movie was called "Chain Lightning" (1950) and starred.......(hmmm, let's see, who did it star?)......oh yeah, that's right it starred Humphrey Bogart. Who'd ya think it starred? I will have to go over to IMDB, maybe tomorrow, and try to figure out how many Bogie movies I have seen and how many more I still have to go. Anyway, "Chain Lightning" was a good one. Bogart plays an Air Force Test Pilot who is qualifying a new supersonic jet so that it can be okayed for manufacture. The jet resembles Chuck Yeager's Bell X-1 and is capable of Mach Two. Bogie's girlfriend is the beautiful Eleanor Parker. She doesn't want him to keep flying because the tests are becoming more and more dangerous, but flying is what he lives for so she puts up with it.
The story begins with his final test flight and is told in flashback after that. Bogart's Air Force career started in WW2, where he flew B-17 Flying Fortresses over Germany. He happens to meet the designer of that famous bomber and complains to him about weaknesses in it's design. Because the script is half romance, we see Bogie proposing marriage to Parker the night before a fateful mission. The next thing we know, the story fast forwards to postwar. Now Humphrey is out of the service and is trying to make ends meet by running a small flight school out in the sticks. He runs into an old wartime buddy (James Brown......no, not that James Brown), who is still in the Air Force but in peacetime mode, and this friend has connections to the new flight research being undertaken in the dawning Jet Age.
Bogie is interested in learning more, and of course the friend's main connection turns out to be the guy who designed the B-17 who Bogie met six years ago during the war. He didn't like the guy then. But the designer is now working on a supersonic jet and he has a backer, a very wealthy aerospace manufacturer clearly based on Howard Hughes and played by Raymond Massey. The designer is ready to recommend Humphrey for the job as #1 Test Pilot for the new jet......but than the romance kicks back in, because Bogie's old WW2 girlfriend, whom he was set to marry at the end of the war before fate intervened, is now involved with the talented aircraft designer.
It's one of those motion picture situations where the woman is torn between two men, but the outcome is clear to the designer. He knows that Parker loves Bogart more than him, but he still needs Bogie to fly his jet, and things get tricky from there, because Raymond Massey is supplying the money for all of the design work, and he wants to blow Chuck Yeager's speed record out of the water because he loves headlines (another direct reference to Howard Hughes).
The grand finale of the film begins when Massey proposes a high speed flight, at 90,000 feet altitude, from Nome, Alaska to Washington, D.C., by way of the North Pole. He says that Bogart will complete the flight in no more than four and one half hours.
This final sequence is very exciting stuff, mostly because of the excellent special effects of the time, which show the jet in flight at high altitude and are combined with stock footage of actual test flights from Edwards Air Force Base to produce an impressive action sequence that, for it's time, would pin audiences in their seats for close to twenty minutes. It even does so today and I would bet that "Chain Lightning" has been an influence on subsequent movies like "Top Gun", just for it's aerial photography.
"Chain Lightning" is extra fun if you are an aviation enthusiast, because there is a lot of location shooting at an early version of Burbank Airport, and also at Edwards. The three way romance is going to play itself out in a somewhat formulaic way, but not without some final drama related to the final flight test.
This one is mostly about the planes, and on those terms it gets Two Thumbs Up from me. It's not a classic Bogie character study, like last night's "The Big Shot" with it's megascript and multi-layered story, but as an action picture it is most excellent, especially for airshow fans like yours truly. ////
I am supertired, so I'm gonna get some sleep and I will see you in the morning.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxo :):)
The story begins with his final test flight and is told in flashback after that. Bogart's Air Force career started in WW2, where he flew B-17 Flying Fortresses over Germany. He happens to meet the designer of that famous bomber and complains to him about weaknesses in it's design. Because the script is half romance, we see Bogie proposing marriage to Parker the night before a fateful mission. The next thing we know, the story fast forwards to postwar. Now Humphrey is out of the service and is trying to make ends meet by running a small flight school out in the sticks. He runs into an old wartime buddy (James Brown......no, not that James Brown), who is still in the Air Force but in peacetime mode, and this friend has connections to the new flight research being undertaken in the dawning Jet Age.
Bogie is interested in learning more, and of course the friend's main connection turns out to be the guy who designed the B-17 who Bogie met six years ago during the war. He didn't like the guy then. But the designer is now working on a supersonic jet and he has a backer, a very wealthy aerospace manufacturer clearly based on Howard Hughes and played by Raymond Massey. The designer is ready to recommend Humphrey for the job as #1 Test Pilot for the new jet......but than the romance kicks back in, because Bogie's old WW2 girlfriend, whom he was set to marry at the end of the war before fate intervened, is now involved with the talented aircraft designer.
It's one of those motion picture situations where the woman is torn between two men, but the outcome is clear to the designer. He knows that Parker loves Bogart more than him, but he still needs Bogie to fly his jet, and things get tricky from there, because Raymond Massey is supplying the money for all of the design work, and he wants to blow Chuck Yeager's speed record out of the water because he loves headlines (another direct reference to Howard Hughes).
The grand finale of the film begins when Massey proposes a high speed flight, at 90,000 feet altitude, from Nome, Alaska to Washington, D.C., by way of the North Pole. He says that Bogart will complete the flight in no more than four and one half hours.
This final sequence is very exciting stuff, mostly because of the excellent special effects of the time, which show the jet in flight at high altitude and are combined with stock footage of actual test flights from Edwards Air Force Base to produce an impressive action sequence that, for it's time, would pin audiences in their seats for close to twenty minutes. It even does so today and I would bet that "Chain Lightning" has been an influence on subsequent movies like "Top Gun", just for it's aerial photography.
"Chain Lightning" is extra fun if you are an aviation enthusiast, because there is a lot of location shooting at an early version of Burbank Airport, and also at Edwards. The three way romance is going to play itself out in a somewhat formulaic way, but not without some final drama related to the final flight test.
This one is mostly about the planes, and on those terms it gets Two Thumbs Up from me. It's not a classic Bogie character study, like last night's "The Big Shot" with it's megascript and multi-layered story, but as an action picture it is most excellent, especially for airshow fans like yours truly. ////
I am supertired, so I'm gonna get some sleep and I will see you in the morning.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxxo :):)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)