(This blog was begun the night of August 16, 2019 and completed the following afternoon)
I don't have a movie review tonight because I watched Episode Six of Spielberg's "Taken" instead. It's an amazing show, a ten part, fifteen hour miniseries that has many many threads and is way too complex for me to detail, which is why I haven't been writing about it. I think I did give a synopsis of the first two episodes, but then the storyline branched out too far for me to continue. All I can say is that if you are a fan of Alien Abduction stories (which I normally am not), or if you are interested in the Roswell story (now that's more like it) or Aliens in general (ditto) and the possibility that hybrids may already be living among us, then this is the show for you. It does get a little bit soap opera-y (pronounced "Opera - ee") in places, and you wish Spielberg......um, wait a sec, let me turn the italics off.....you wish Spielberg would reign in some of his "human condition" tendencies to concentrate on the secret military aspect of the tale, but that's a small quibble. It's a pretty awesome show, and 17 years old now, at that. Give it a view if you are so inclined. Spielberg won't let you down.
Since I don't have a movie, I'd like to write instead about the book I've just finished, "Chaos : Manson, the CIA and the Secret History of the Sixties" by Tom O'Neil. I mentioned in an earlier blog that I was being blown away by what I was reading in the book, and now that I have finished, I think it is certain that Vincent Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" theory was not simply erroneous but was deliberately fabricated, and that it was fabricated to cover up a far more sinister set of complications behind the Manson murders - i.e., that they were the result of an MKUltra experiment gone wrong (or perhaps "gone right", as one Federal Agent put it in the book).
Before I go into a tirade - and I may not even do so tonight if I become too tired - I'd like to ask you to consider something. Have you ever heard of Dr. Josef Mengele, the "Angel Of Death" of Auschwitz? Indeed you might have heard of him, for he is well known in history as a diabolical person. Have you ever heard of Shiro Ishii? He was the Japanese equivalent of Mengele, a doctor who during WW2 worked out of a facility called Unit 731 that studied the offensive potentials of biological warfare, a new prospect at the time. His studies utilized human guinea pigs in the same way as did Josef Mengele, in a vicious and amoral method. If you read about his experiments, you may think him even worse, if such a subjective conclusion was possible between two monsters such as these men.
And now that I have asked you if you have heard of Drs. Mengele and Ishii, I would like to ask you if you've ever heard of Sidney Gottlieb? I'm not sure if he had a doctorate in anything, but he was a chemist and a scientist who came to work for the CIA and to eventually create and head up their MKUltra program, which was carried out in the strictest secrecy.
If you research Sidney Gottlieb (beyond phoney baloney propaganda on Wikipedia and the like), and if you read enough books on the extent of the MKUltra project, you will have no choice, unless you are an unresolved equivocator, than to conclude that Sidney Gottlieb was America's own Dr. Mengele or Dr. Ishii - a sociopath who saw human beings as objects. With MkUltra, he created a project that would study the effects of mind control on unwitting subjects, using techniques like hypnosis and surreptitiously administered drugs like LSD. You'd have to study the subject yourself, for it is far too involved for me to thoroughly describe in a blog, but you can trust me when I tell you that if you were to research Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA's project of MKUltra, you would hardly be able to come to any other conclusion than that Gottlieb was a monster on the same level as Mengele and Ishii.
My point is that you would have to conclude, if you were being honest with yourself, that we here in America have had diabolical and inhuman sadists - monsters is the correct term - operating under the guise and protection of governmental "research", who have been every bit as cruel and evil as the despicable monster scientists we have catalogued and abhorred from Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.
They have had the historically recorded Mengele and Ishii. We have had Sidney Gottlieb. The difference is that we as a nation have yet to acknowledge his crimes. Gottlieb is not yet in the history books as a psychopath, though hopefully he is on his way. Joining him, one also hopes, will be another monster named Louis Jolyon West.
West was a psychiatrist who began his career in the Air Force. Eventually he came to work for the CIA as part of the MKUltra mind control program. Author Tom O'Neil did extensive research on West, and has documented proof, written in West's own words, that he had developed the ability to implant false memories in subjects, and to create secondary personalities (i.e. "split" personalities) in people, using drugs like LSD and other hallucinogenics, combined with hypnotism.
In his career, "Jolly" West examined Jack Ruby, who "went insane" after their meeting while Ruby was in jail for killing Lee Harvey Oswald. After being examined by West, Ruby was no longer coherent and was no longer of any use as a witness for either the prosecution or defense in his case. In other words, whatever he knew about a conspiracy to kill JFK, he could no longer tell it.
"Jolly" West also examined Sirhan Sirhan, a more or less proven Manchurian Candidate, and finally he examined Timothy McVeigh as well. For an excellent and thoroughly researched book on the OKC Bombing case, I highly recommend reading "Aberration In The Heartland Of The Real : The Secret Lives Of Timothy McVeigh" by Wendy Painting. If you read this book, you will see just what kind of human experimentation secret agencies in this country are capable of.
Was McVeigh a Manchurian Candidate? Read the book and decide for yourself. I know what my answer is.
Which brings us to the case of Charles Manson.
Was he ever examined by Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West? We know that one aim of the MKUltra program was to create mindless killers who could be programmed to kill on command. We also know that LSD experimentation for the purpose of mind control was one of the main goals of the CIA in it's MKUltra program. In his book "Chaos" (et al), Tom O'Neil has researched Manson's activities in the year 1967, from the day he was paroled from Federal prison in March of that year. Manson immediately headed for San Francisco, even though traveling away from Los Angeles County was a violation of his parole.
Manson would be treated with unheard of leniency throughout his 2 1/2 years of freedom between his parole and his re-arrest in October 1969 for the Tate murders. During that time he committed multiple crimes, that not only his parole officer was aware of, but also the District Attorney of more than one county and detectives from both the LAPD and LA County Sheriff's Office.
Why was Charles Manson treated with kid gloves by these law enforcement agencies?
Could it be that he was under the supervision of the CIA?
And was he ever in contact with "Jolly" West, the Agency's top shrink?
There is circumstantial evidence to suggest the possibility, but that is all I have time to relate to you now, because I have to head back to Pearl's. I will try to finish up my thoughts on the matter this evening. See you then. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Friday, August 16, 2019
"Call It Murder" featuring (but not starring) Humphrey Bogart
(this blog was begun the night of August 15, 2019 and finished today)
Tonight I am writing once again from Pearl's. I had a nice week off but now I am back on the job for another month. I'm so used to my schedule by now, though, that it's second nature to jump right back in. I did watch a movie, of course : "Call It Murder" (1934), starring an early actress named Sidney Fox and an older gentleman named O.P. Heggie, whose IMDB shows that he was in some prominent films, though his name did not ring a bell. "Call It Murder" was originally titled "Midnight", which was the name of the play it was based upon. It was released as "Midnight" in 1934, but then re-released under it's new name in 1947, to cash in on Humphrey Bogart's fame. Bogie has limited screentime in the film, and his role is that of a secondary character, but because he had achieved major stardom by 1947, he is first billed in the re-edited title sequence.
The movie opens in a courtroom, where a woman is on trial for the murder of her husband. The prosecution is trying to prove premeditation, which will allow a conviction on First Degree Murder. In those days that was an automatic death sentence that was normally carried out in rapid fashion. As the jurors are listening to closing arguments, the jury foreman interjects to ask a question of the defendant : did she steal her husband's bank savings after the murder? The woman is scared. She answers truthfully. "Yes, I did steal the money". This answer seals her fate. What could have been a charge reduced to manslaughter is now a certain first degree conviction and a likely trip to the electric chair.
She is taken away to Death Row, to be executed on August 15th, which by weird coincidence was tonight! Except for 85 years in the past.....(man, spooky..)
Now the plot will shift to it's main focus, where the spotlight will be on the jury foreman, on whose last minute courtroom question the verdict seemed to hinge. He is holed up in his house, surrounded by his family as reporters crowd his front lawn. They pound on his door, demanding a statement. "Do you feel responsible for sending a woman to the electric chair"? His wife and children urge him to ignore the questions, but we can see that he is feeling some pangs of conscience. Finally he throws open his front door and shouts that "murder is murder! It makes no difference if it was committed by man or woman. Both are equal in the eyes of the law. The woman admitted her crime, the law stipulates the punishment"!
"I was only following the law", he declares.
No regard is made for whether the woman was a victim of abuse, which may be a possibility. The Press is interested in the moral aspect of sentencing a woman to death, versus a man, who in those days if found guilty was always considered a hardened criminal worthy of no sympathy whatsoever.
But here, the focus is on the jury foreman. Actor O.P. Heggie was 56 when he played this role (I looked it up), but he appears to be between 75 and 80, and it's not because of makeup. He may have been chosen for his frail and bewildered appearance, and while he is mesmerizing in the lead role, his performance is somewhat at odds with the rest of the cast. To me it looks as if Heggie was working from ingrained techniques that would have been holdovers from Silent films. His timing is markedly slower than the other actors in any given scene, and at times he seems somnambulistic, leaving long pauses in his phrases of dialogue. As awkward as his performance looks at times, it can be seen as a success because it stands out among the other characterizations in the movie. There is also a chance he was not well during the filming, as he passed away two years later in 1936. As I say, he was only in his late 50s but looked like Father Time.
Actors and actresses lived fast and hard in those days, smoking and drinking with abandon, and taking pills too, which is why so many of them only lived into their mid-fifties, if that long.
But back to the story. Several things are taking place on the night of August 15th, as the convicted murderess awaits execution at Midnight (hence the movie's original title). For one, a hotshot reporter (Henry Hull) has conspired with the jury foreman's son-in-law to bring a radio set into the house, ostensibly to pick up a live broadcast of the execution proceedings. The reporter's real motive, however, is to note the foreman's reaction to the execution, and then to write a heavy-handed story about his imagined guilt. In this regard, there is a thread of a capital punishment debate being played out, especially where it concerns women.
For another thing, the foreman's daughter is distraught about the verdict. She attended the trial and felt sorry for the convicted woman. Now, on the night her death sentence is to be carried out, she begs her father to make a phone call to the warden or governor, to explain why he asked his pivotal question at the trial, and to ask the officials for a postponement until the case can be re-examined.
But old Mr. Heggie will not budge. Then another character arrives at the house. It is Humphrey Bogart, looking very young and handsome, and already exuding the charisma that will make him a star. He was also a regular at the trial, and by the end, he and the daughter had developed a relationship. Tonight he wants to take her on a date, but he is something of a shady character, and her in-laws and siblings who are also at the house, don't want her to go with him. She is anxious to get away from the tension, though, and doesn't want to hear the radio broadcast, so she does leave with Bogie, against her father's wishes.
And there the plot will turn, because Bogie's pretense of taking her on a date is only that : an excuse to get her out of the house, alone with him.
That is all I shall tell you of the story, but the plot is quite involving all the way through. The only demerits I would give the film all have to do with the production itself, or perhaps the direction. Sometimes when I see an early sound film, I notice what I will call an "uneveness" in the way the actors play a scene. They can seem out of synch, or acting in varying degrees or styles of technique. Sometimes an actor will gesture in a way that indicates he has yet to evolve from Silent techniques. The camera work and editing will not always flow together and most of all, the sound quality may be poor, with no added music or soundtrack whatsoever, just the static voices of characters in a scene, which, if the actors are using non-homogenous vocal styles, as in "Call It Murder", serves to throw the film off balance. This film is one of those early sound efforts that suffers from these problems. Now, by 1934, the bigger studios had licked all of these problems that led to substandard productions, and were, by and large, making slick and glossy films by that time. But perhaps "Call It Murder" was a low budget affair, I don't know.
It's not really a major complaint, because I still give the film Two Higher Than Average Thumbs Up. It's got a great script and plot, and for the most part is well-acted, including by O.P. Heggie. It's just that the direction or timing or sound or something feels off, and for that reason a viewer will have to be patient if he or she is not used to this kind of early sound movie.
Still, "Call It Murder" is very much recommended (even just because of it's weirdness!), and should be sought out by Bogie fans like me, who are trying to see every movie he made. /////
That's all for now. Gotta try to finish my book : "Chaos : Manson, The CIA and The Secret History Of The Sixties". Then I'll tell you all about it! See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox :):)
Tonight I am writing once again from Pearl's. I had a nice week off but now I am back on the job for another month. I'm so used to my schedule by now, though, that it's second nature to jump right back in. I did watch a movie, of course : "Call It Murder" (1934), starring an early actress named Sidney Fox and an older gentleman named O.P. Heggie, whose IMDB shows that he was in some prominent films, though his name did not ring a bell. "Call It Murder" was originally titled "Midnight", which was the name of the play it was based upon. It was released as "Midnight" in 1934, but then re-released under it's new name in 1947, to cash in on Humphrey Bogart's fame. Bogie has limited screentime in the film, and his role is that of a secondary character, but because he had achieved major stardom by 1947, he is first billed in the re-edited title sequence.
The movie opens in a courtroom, where a woman is on trial for the murder of her husband. The prosecution is trying to prove premeditation, which will allow a conviction on First Degree Murder. In those days that was an automatic death sentence that was normally carried out in rapid fashion. As the jurors are listening to closing arguments, the jury foreman interjects to ask a question of the defendant : did she steal her husband's bank savings after the murder? The woman is scared. She answers truthfully. "Yes, I did steal the money". This answer seals her fate. What could have been a charge reduced to manslaughter is now a certain first degree conviction and a likely trip to the electric chair.
She is taken away to Death Row, to be executed on August 15th, which by weird coincidence was tonight! Except for 85 years in the past.....(man, spooky..)
Now the plot will shift to it's main focus, where the spotlight will be on the jury foreman, on whose last minute courtroom question the verdict seemed to hinge. He is holed up in his house, surrounded by his family as reporters crowd his front lawn. They pound on his door, demanding a statement. "Do you feel responsible for sending a woman to the electric chair"? His wife and children urge him to ignore the questions, but we can see that he is feeling some pangs of conscience. Finally he throws open his front door and shouts that "murder is murder! It makes no difference if it was committed by man or woman. Both are equal in the eyes of the law. The woman admitted her crime, the law stipulates the punishment"!
"I was only following the law", he declares.
No regard is made for whether the woman was a victim of abuse, which may be a possibility. The Press is interested in the moral aspect of sentencing a woman to death, versus a man, who in those days if found guilty was always considered a hardened criminal worthy of no sympathy whatsoever.
But here, the focus is on the jury foreman. Actor O.P. Heggie was 56 when he played this role (I looked it up), but he appears to be between 75 and 80, and it's not because of makeup. He may have been chosen for his frail and bewildered appearance, and while he is mesmerizing in the lead role, his performance is somewhat at odds with the rest of the cast. To me it looks as if Heggie was working from ingrained techniques that would have been holdovers from Silent films. His timing is markedly slower than the other actors in any given scene, and at times he seems somnambulistic, leaving long pauses in his phrases of dialogue. As awkward as his performance looks at times, it can be seen as a success because it stands out among the other characterizations in the movie. There is also a chance he was not well during the filming, as he passed away two years later in 1936. As I say, he was only in his late 50s but looked like Father Time.
Actors and actresses lived fast and hard in those days, smoking and drinking with abandon, and taking pills too, which is why so many of them only lived into their mid-fifties, if that long.
But back to the story. Several things are taking place on the night of August 15th, as the convicted murderess awaits execution at Midnight (hence the movie's original title). For one, a hotshot reporter (Henry Hull) has conspired with the jury foreman's son-in-law to bring a radio set into the house, ostensibly to pick up a live broadcast of the execution proceedings. The reporter's real motive, however, is to note the foreman's reaction to the execution, and then to write a heavy-handed story about his imagined guilt. In this regard, there is a thread of a capital punishment debate being played out, especially where it concerns women.
For another thing, the foreman's daughter is distraught about the verdict. She attended the trial and felt sorry for the convicted woman. Now, on the night her death sentence is to be carried out, she begs her father to make a phone call to the warden or governor, to explain why he asked his pivotal question at the trial, and to ask the officials for a postponement until the case can be re-examined.
But old Mr. Heggie will not budge. Then another character arrives at the house. It is Humphrey Bogart, looking very young and handsome, and already exuding the charisma that will make him a star. He was also a regular at the trial, and by the end, he and the daughter had developed a relationship. Tonight he wants to take her on a date, but he is something of a shady character, and her in-laws and siblings who are also at the house, don't want her to go with him. She is anxious to get away from the tension, though, and doesn't want to hear the radio broadcast, so she does leave with Bogie, against her father's wishes.
And there the plot will turn, because Bogie's pretense of taking her on a date is only that : an excuse to get her out of the house, alone with him.
That is all I shall tell you of the story, but the plot is quite involving all the way through. The only demerits I would give the film all have to do with the production itself, or perhaps the direction. Sometimes when I see an early sound film, I notice what I will call an "uneveness" in the way the actors play a scene. They can seem out of synch, or acting in varying degrees or styles of technique. Sometimes an actor will gesture in a way that indicates he has yet to evolve from Silent techniques. The camera work and editing will not always flow together and most of all, the sound quality may be poor, with no added music or soundtrack whatsoever, just the static voices of characters in a scene, which, if the actors are using non-homogenous vocal styles, as in "Call It Murder", serves to throw the film off balance. This film is one of those early sound efforts that suffers from these problems. Now, by 1934, the bigger studios had licked all of these problems that led to substandard productions, and were, by and large, making slick and glossy films by that time. But perhaps "Call It Murder" was a low budget affair, I don't know.
It's not really a major complaint, because I still give the film Two Higher Than Average Thumbs Up. It's got a great script and plot, and for the most part is well-acted, including by O.P. Heggie. It's just that the direction or timing or sound or something feels off, and for that reason a viewer will have to be patient if he or she is not used to this kind of early sound movie.
Still, "Call It Murder" is very much recommended (even just because of it's weirdness!), and should be sought out by Bogie fans like me, who are trying to see every movie he made. /////
That's all for now. Gotta try to finish my book : "Chaos : Manson, The CIA and The Secret History Of The Sixties". Then I'll tell you all about it! See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox :):)
Thursday, August 15, 2019
"Sunrise" by F.W. Murnau
Tonight's movie was a classic from the Silent Era : "Sunrise" (1927), directed by the legendary F.W. Murnau of German Expressionist fame. I'd been meaning to see "Sunrise" for many years now, perhaps a decade, after first watching the director's "Nosferatu" and then later on his lesser known works "Faust" and "The Last Laugh". Early on, I had wanted to buy a copy of "Sunrise", but for a while it was hard to find, an expensive collector's item. Then as the years passed, it simply went on the cinematic back burner, not forgotten but pushed aside by the ever changing vagaries of my viewing habits. You know me, I watch almost a movie a night, recently well over 200 a year, and I go on binges. Sometimes I'll watch Westerns for months on end, or Film Noir. Then I'll get stuck on Judy Garland or John Wayne for a week or two, or Steve McQueen or Barbara Stanwyck. It the early days of Criterion and all during the years of the CSUN Cinematheque I tried to see as many great foreign films as I could get my hands on. I'm constantly searching for movies, anything and everything (except Sandler, Schwarzenegger, DeVito, et al, you know my slogan), and so over the course of sixteen years of dvd watching, there have been several films I've been intent on seeing that I never got around to for one reason or another. "Sunrise" was one of those films, until tonight.
I'm afraid I won't be comfortable revealing too much about the plot. I know that I usually go into great detail, but that is because we are often watching films with complex storylines. We watch a lot of films from the golden era of screenwriting, when a talented writer could pack a truckload of story, and multiple threads, into an 80 or 90 minute movie. With "Sunrise", we are dealing with a very simple story, not because Murnau or his collaborators are incapable - far from it - but because they are presenting us with a moral fable rather than an everyday plot. As the title cards put it at the beginning of the film, "this is a song of a man and his wife, of any place or no place".
It's a story of human nature that could befall anyone, if his or her guard was down, or if he or she were feeling dissatisfied in life.
Let me see how much I can describe without giving too much away.
A farmer and his wife live in the mountains, near a vacation resort popular with travelers. The location could be Europe, but it was actually shot at Big Bear Lake, right here in Southern California. One vacationer, whom you might call a Modern Woman of the 1920s, has remained at her cabin for weeks past the usual Summer term of most visitors. I will tell you that she is staying on because she has her eyes on the farmer, whom she spies around the village. He is a handsome hunk, played by the future star George O'Brien. A flashback shows that he has had a happy marriage, for the most part, but that work on the farm and a newly arrived baby have caused a strain of the affection between him and his wife, who is played by Janet Gaynor, one of the earliest of female film stars.
There you have the basic plot, or possible plot since I don't wish to give it away. You have a farmer and his wife, living a simple existence and raising their baby, and you have this woman from the city, vacationing nearby with temptation on her mind.
The film gets to the point very quickly without much preamble, which leads to a highly dramatic first act. This is followed by a long interlude which takes up about half the film. In watching this second act, you begin to wonder if the plot is going to resume, because as I say, it is a very long, continuous sequence of events in which there is more or less no conflict or drama.
But then you begin to appreciate what it is that Murnau is doing, which is letting the pictures do the talking. The entire middle sequence, running about 45 minutes, takes us away from the countryside and into a modern city, with amazing art deco structures enhanced by Expressionist sets. As we tour cafes, shops and what looks like an indoor amusement park, our mood is gradually lifted along with that of the characters. One reviewer referred to it as "visual poetry" and that is an apt description. Poems don't always have explicit meaning but suggest it instead. Now, we can see how the tour of the city is affecting our characters, but not much is happening dramatically. Rather, it is a nuance of moods that is being suggested by the photography.
There will be a return to plot, back into the darkness of the night (and of the soul), but I will leave it at that.
I think because of it's title, I was expecting "Sunrise" to be a basically sunny story about a young couple starting life together in rural America. I had no idea what it was about. As it turned out, it was very similar in tone and style to "Last Laugh" or "Faust". "Nosferatu" is straight up horror, and therefore in a separate category. But Murnau makes dark-themed films, and "Sunrise" is one of them, though there is always hope in his movies as well.
Really what he was, was one of the early visual geniuses of cinema, who utilized camera movement to create audience involvement. You feel "inside" his movies, with their surreal sets. He was also one of the first directors to use specific angles from which to picture his characters in close up, so as to suggest what they might be thinking or feeling.
"Sunrise" was honored at the very first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929, winning an Oscar for "Most Unique Artistic Production", the only time that category was presented. It also won for Best Cinematography (easy to see why), and Janet Gaynor won for Best Actress, the first ever to receive that award.
Normally, I might add a disclaimer because "Sunrise" is a Silent film, and often, for uninitiated viewers this can be a problem. As an aside, I also think that if any fan of cinema were to give Silents a chance, to develop a taste for them slowly and on their own merits, that most anyone could become a fan, as I have. Early on it was a little difficult but nowdays I have no problem watching a Silent Movie, so long as it is a good film.
But none of this applies to "Sunrise", and I don't need disclaimer because, even though it is Silent, it is such a visual feast and such an involving story on an emotional level, that I think it can be enjoyed by anyone, even if they've never seen a Silent before.
Really, it's a Masterpiece of the highest order, which I think will be enhanced by repeat viewings.
Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, then, for "Sunrise" and for the genius of F.W. Murnau. Look for it! /////
I am back at work today, so I will try and return to a normal writing schedule. No hikes this afternoon, just getting everything back in order at Pearl's and settling in for another cycle.
I've been listening to Dodgers games whenever possible. Man, is this team incredible or what? Every guy is an offensive threat, everyone can play multiple positions. When they call a guy up from the minors, he contributes instantly (see Will Smith).
This may just be the greatest Dodger team since the 1970s. This is their year to finally win the World Series. :)
That's all for now. Hope you are having a great day. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
I'm afraid I won't be comfortable revealing too much about the plot. I know that I usually go into great detail, but that is because we are often watching films with complex storylines. We watch a lot of films from the golden era of screenwriting, when a talented writer could pack a truckload of story, and multiple threads, into an 80 or 90 minute movie. With "Sunrise", we are dealing with a very simple story, not because Murnau or his collaborators are incapable - far from it - but because they are presenting us with a moral fable rather than an everyday plot. As the title cards put it at the beginning of the film, "this is a song of a man and his wife, of any place or no place".
It's a story of human nature that could befall anyone, if his or her guard was down, or if he or she were feeling dissatisfied in life.
Let me see how much I can describe without giving too much away.
A farmer and his wife live in the mountains, near a vacation resort popular with travelers. The location could be Europe, but it was actually shot at Big Bear Lake, right here in Southern California. One vacationer, whom you might call a Modern Woman of the 1920s, has remained at her cabin for weeks past the usual Summer term of most visitors. I will tell you that she is staying on because she has her eyes on the farmer, whom she spies around the village. He is a handsome hunk, played by the future star George O'Brien. A flashback shows that he has had a happy marriage, for the most part, but that work on the farm and a newly arrived baby have caused a strain of the affection between him and his wife, who is played by Janet Gaynor, one of the earliest of female film stars.
There you have the basic plot, or possible plot since I don't wish to give it away. You have a farmer and his wife, living a simple existence and raising their baby, and you have this woman from the city, vacationing nearby with temptation on her mind.
The film gets to the point very quickly without much preamble, which leads to a highly dramatic first act. This is followed by a long interlude which takes up about half the film. In watching this second act, you begin to wonder if the plot is going to resume, because as I say, it is a very long, continuous sequence of events in which there is more or less no conflict or drama.
But then you begin to appreciate what it is that Murnau is doing, which is letting the pictures do the talking. The entire middle sequence, running about 45 minutes, takes us away from the countryside and into a modern city, with amazing art deco structures enhanced by Expressionist sets. As we tour cafes, shops and what looks like an indoor amusement park, our mood is gradually lifted along with that of the characters. One reviewer referred to it as "visual poetry" and that is an apt description. Poems don't always have explicit meaning but suggest it instead. Now, we can see how the tour of the city is affecting our characters, but not much is happening dramatically. Rather, it is a nuance of moods that is being suggested by the photography.
There will be a return to plot, back into the darkness of the night (and of the soul), but I will leave it at that.
I think because of it's title, I was expecting "Sunrise" to be a basically sunny story about a young couple starting life together in rural America. I had no idea what it was about. As it turned out, it was very similar in tone and style to "Last Laugh" or "Faust". "Nosferatu" is straight up horror, and therefore in a separate category. But Murnau makes dark-themed films, and "Sunrise" is one of them, though there is always hope in his movies as well.
Really what he was, was one of the early visual geniuses of cinema, who utilized camera movement to create audience involvement. You feel "inside" his movies, with their surreal sets. He was also one of the first directors to use specific angles from which to picture his characters in close up, so as to suggest what they might be thinking or feeling.
"Sunrise" was honored at the very first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929, winning an Oscar for "Most Unique Artistic Production", the only time that category was presented. It also won for Best Cinematography (easy to see why), and Janet Gaynor won for Best Actress, the first ever to receive that award.
Normally, I might add a disclaimer because "Sunrise" is a Silent film, and often, for uninitiated viewers this can be a problem. As an aside, I also think that if any fan of cinema were to give Silents a chance, to develop a taste for them slowly and on their own merits, that most anyone could become a fan, as I have. Early on it was a little difficult but nowdays I have no problem watching a Silent Movie, so long as it is a good film.
But none of this applies to "Sunrise", and I don't need disclaimer because, even though it is Silent, it is such a visual feast and such an involving story on an emotional level, that I think it can be enjoyed by anyone, even if they've never seen a Silent before.
Really, it's a Masterpiece of the highest order, which I think will be enhanced by repeat viewings.
Two Gigantic Thumbs Up, then, for "Sunrise" and for the genius of F.W. Murnau. Look for it! /////
I am back at work today, so I will try and return to a normal writing schedule. No hikes this afternoon, just getting everything back in order at Pearl's and settling in for another cycle.
I've been listening to Dodgers games whenever possible. Man, is this team incredible or what? Every guy is an offensive threat, everyone can play multiple positions. When they call a guy up from the minors, he contributes instantly (see Will Smith).
This may just be the greatest Dodger team since the 1970s. This is their year to finally win the World Series. :)
That's all for now. Hope you are having a great day. See you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
"The Deadly Mantis", Classic 50s Sci-Fi At It's Best
Tonight's film was another winner from my Ultimate Sci-Fi Collection Volume Two dvd set. It was called "The Deadly Mantis" (1957), and boy was it ever good! I mean - wow! As far as Giant Bug Movies go, I'd put it right up there with "Tarantula" and "Them", and I'm surprised that it doesn't have a similar reputation. It's IMDB score is a mere 5.0, which leads me to question the sci-fi bona fides of the collective knuckleheads who reviewed it. Anyhow, listen up while I give "Mantis" it's due.
Remember a week or two ago, when we were talking about what makes a classic sci-fi? I stated that if you have military involvement, you are on the right track. The best sci-fi movies open with a group of Generals sitting in a conference room, planning a Secret Defense Project of some kind or another, which usually involves an Expedition To A Remote Location. The jungle is good, or even the desert, but best of all is the Arctic. Classic Sci-Fi starts with Generals in a room planning an expedition to the Arctic (or Antarctica), to conduct a Secret Project for the Defense Department. One General stands in front of a huge wall map with a pointer, and explains the logistics of said expedition. Then he turns the briefing over to a scientist, who details the particulars, who explains why the project is so important.
And if it is because atomic radiation has caused a Giant Bug to grow, and to start attacking humans, then you know you've got a classic Sci-Fi on your hands. Of course, it will have been shot in black and white. Color is absolutely verboten for 1950s sci-fi. But you're gonna be in the Arctic anyway, at least for the first half of the movie, so you don't need color. And if you're like me, you don't want it. Not for a film like "The Deadly Mantis".
Okay, look - up at the North Pole, there's been a huge breakaway of a gigantic piece of ice, which falls into the sea with an enormous splash. We actually get to see this, courtesy of stock footage, which is another hallmark of classic sci-fi. So the ice chunk has fallen, exposing an underlayer of crystal clear ice, in which a frozen Praying Mantis is trapped. His ice cube is going drip, drip, drip, however, and it won't be long before it melts.
We know this; the Generals don't. Nor do the scientists and the military personnel stationed at the DEW (distant early warning) radar sites near the Arctic Circle. They don't even know there is a Mantis. They have only been attuned to the possibility of a sneak attack by the Russkies (and I just Googled to find out that the DEW Line radar system became operational in 1957, the same year the movie was released). So the filmmakers knew the real threat, which was not the Russians but a 200 foot tall Praying Mantis that had been buried in the ice all that time.
At Weather Station #4, an operator tracks an anomaly on his radar screen. It seems to be a glitch, so he calls his supervisor over to take a look, and then Whammo!
Weather Station #4 is toast. That is enough to send the expedition on it's way, consisting of battleships, aircraft carriers and lots of jets. Colonel Craig Stevens is in charge, assisted by a paleontologist (William Hopper) and his photographer (Alix Talton), who is really an undercover reporter.
When they get to Station #4, they find no trace of the five soldiers who manned the site. The roof is caved in, debris is scattered everywhere, but the men are gone. The only trace of evidence is a huge, three pronged track mark in the snow, which looks like it could have been made by a.........foot?
Do insects have feet? What do you call the things they walk on, anyway? We know they have legs, but.....
Well anyhow, the footprint is huge (and if you want, you can use the east coast pronunciation of "huge" which is "yooge").
Nearby, they find a body part. It is five feet long, bony and hooked. It resembles a toenail or claw, and is broken away at it's base to reveal cartilage or some other goop inside. Biological testing reveals an absence of red corpuscles, which could only mean one thing :
It's from an insect.
But Holy Smokes, if it's from an insect, and it's claw is five feet long, then the creature must be The Biggest Thing That Ever Lived!
Which will prove to be quite true, I'm sorry to say. The Mantis would dwarf King Kong, or even Godzilla or any of those guys. He's several times bigger than a C-47 Troop Carrier, as you and the troops inside will see. An enormous can of Raid might work, but we don't have such.
The only thing left to do is to send in the Air Force, even though their missiles do little more than annoy the Mantis at first. I'll leave you to discover what happens after that, but yessiree, and wow again!
If you like military sci-fi, atomic age sci-fi, where the Army or the Navy or the Air Force has to take on a Giant Bug, then "The Deadly Mantis" is the movie for you. It's chock full of stock footage from start to finish, of jets over the Arctic, jets firing rockets, radar stations, Dew Line antennas, aircraft carriers, etc. You also get to hang out in the Paleontology Dept. at the fictional University, too. The paleontologist plays a lead role, but this is a military flick first and foremost. Former Miss Georgia Alix Talton is brought along seemingly for romantic purposes - Colonel Stevens has an eye on her - but to the film's credit, the writers allow her to be her own woman, there as a reporter and not as cheesecake.
I mean, hey - there's a man-eating Praying Mantis to deal with. Who's got time for romance? ///// :):)
So there you have it. Needless to say, "The Deadly Mantis" gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up. It is an absolute must-see for fans of 1950s Sci-Fi, and the special effects are not too shabby either, better than you would think for a Giant Bug movie, and shot in an style that resembles German Expressionism or chiaroscuro ( a word I learned in Professor Tim's class).
Today is my last day off work until the middle of September, so I suppose I'll get out there on one last hike in a little while. Maybe I'll find some Coyotes or Spiders or other critters to photograph. Maybe even a Praying Mantis! Man, that would be so cool, especially if he was 200 feet tall......
That's all for now. See you outside on the trail. Don't forget about Disneyland next month.
Back tonight at the Usual Time, tons of love until then. xoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxo :):)
Remember a week or two ago, when we were talking about what makes a classic sci-fi? I stated that if you have military involvement, you are on the right track. The best sci-fi movies open with a group of Generals sitting in a conference room, planning a Secret Defense Project of some kind or another, which usually involves an Expedition To A Remote Location. The jungle is good, or even the desert, but best of all is the Arctic. Classic Sci-Fi starts with Generals in a room planning an expedition to the Arctic (or Antarctica), to conduct a Secret Project for the Defense Department. One General stands in front of a huge wall map with a pointer, and explains the logistics of said expedition. Then he turns the briefing over to a scientist, who details the particulars, who explains why the project is so important.
And if it is because atomic radiation has caused a Giant Bug to grow, and to start attacking humans, then you know you've got a classic Sci-Fi on your hands. Of course, it will have been shot in black and white. Color is absolutely verboten for 1950s sci-fi. But you're gonna be in the Arctic anyway, at least for the first half of the movie, so you don't need color. And if you're like me, you don't want it. Not for a film like "The Deadly Mantis".
Okay, look - up at the North Pole, there's been a huge breakaway of a gigantic piece of ice, which falls into the sea with an enormous splash. We actually get to see this, courtesy of stock footage, which is another hallmark of classic sci-fi. So the ice chunk has fallen, exposing an underlayer of crystal clear ice, in which a frozen Praying Mantis is trapped. His ice cube is going drip, drip, drip, however, and it won't be long before it melts.
We know this; the Generals don't. Nor do the scientists and the military personnel stationed at the DEW (distant early warning) radar sites near the Arctic Circle. They don't even know there is a Mantis. They have only been attuned to the possibility of a sneak attack by the Russkies (and I just Googled to find out that the DEW Line radar system became operational in 1957, the same year the movie was released). So the filmmakers knew the real threat, which was not the Russians but a 200 foot tall Praying Mantis that had been buried in the ice all that time.
At Weather Station #4, an operator tracks an anomaly on his radar screen. It seems to be a glitch, so he calls his supervisor over to take a look, and then Whammo!
Weather Station #4 is toast. That is enough to send the expedition on it's way, consisting of battleships, aircraft carriers and lots of jets. Colonel Craig Stevens is in charge, assisted by a paleontologist (William Hopper) and his photographer (Alix Talton), who is really an undercover reporter.
When they get to Station #4, they find no trace of the five soldiers who manned the site. The roof is caved in, debris is scattered everywhere, but the men are gone. The only trace of evidence is a huge, three pronged track mark in the snow, which looks like it could have been made by a.........foot?
Do insects have feet? What do you call the things they walk on, anyway? We know they have legs, but.....
Well anyhow, the footprint is huge (and if you want, you can use the east coast pronunciation of "huge" which is "yooge").
Nearby, they find a body part. It is five feet long, bony and hooked. It resembles a toenail or claw, and is broken away at it's base to reveal cartilage or some other goop inside. Biological testing reveals an absence of red corpuscles, which could only mean one thing :
It's from an insect.
But Holy Smokes, if it's from an insect, and it's claw is five feet long, then the creature must be The Biggest Thing That Ever Lived!
Which will prove to be quite true, I'm sorry to say. The Mantis would dwarf King Kong, or even Godzilla or any of those guys. He's several times bigger than a C-47 Troop Carrier, as you and the troops inside will see. An enormous can of Raid might work, but we don't have such.
The only thing left to do is to send in the Air Force, even though their missiles do little more than annoy the Mantis at first. I'll leave you to discover what happens after that, but yessiree, and wow again!
If you like military sci-fi, atomic age sci-fi, where the Army or the Navy or the Air Force has to take on a Giant Bug, then "The Deadly Mantis" is the movie for you. It's chock full of stock footage from start to finish, of jets over the Arctic, jets firing rockets, radar stations, Dew Line antennas, aircraft carriers, etc. You also get to hang out in the Paleontology Dept. at the fictional University, too. The paleontologist plays a lead role, but this is a military flick first and foremost. Former Miss Georgia Alix Talton is brought along seemingly for romantic purposes - Colonel Stevens has an eye on her - but to the film's credit, the writers allow her to be her own woman, there as a reporter and not as cheesecake.
I mean, hey - there's a man-eating Praying Mantis to deal with. Who's got time for romance? ///// :):)
So there you have it. Needless to say, "The Deadly Mantis" gets Two Gigantic Thumbs Up. It is an absolute must-see for fans of 1950s Sci-Fi, and the special effects are not too shabby either, better than you would think for a Giant Bug movie, and shot in an style that resembles German Expressionism or chiaroscuro ( a word I learned in Professor Tim's class).
Today is my last day off work until the middle of September, so I suppose I'll get out there on one last hike in a little while. Maybe I'll find some Coyotes or Spiders or other critters to photograph. Maybe even a Praying Mantis! Man, that would be so cool, especially if he was 200 feet tall......
That's all for now. See you outside on the trail. Don't forget about Disneyland next month.
Back tonight at the Usual Time, tons of love until then. xoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxo :):)
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
"The Bat" starring Agnes Moorehead and Vincent Price
Tonight I watched a fun little film called "The Bat" (1959), starring Agnes Moorehead and Vincent Price. It could qualify as either horror or suspense, so take your pick, but essentially it is one of those "everyone is trapped in a creepy old house" movies that were popular in the 1950s. What makes "The Bat" a cut above some of the other flicks is that The House isn't the only location. We aren't doing the "Ten Little Indians" plot here. Also, somehow by coincidence we are back with Joseph Biroc for the second night in a row. Last night we saw his beautiful outdoor color photography in "Emperor Of The North", and tonight we watched his equally excellent indoor black & white work, all full of shadows and crisp edges. "The Bat" has been restored to original release print quality, so it looks fantastic, which of course heightens the pleasure of watching it.
We rarely get to see Agnes Moorehead in a leading role, and even though she was entering her campy period by 1959 (as were Bette Davis and Joan Crawford), she is nonetheless on top of her game as a writer of mystery stories who has rented an Old Creepy Home for the summer. The small town is anonymous, fictional, but it could be Long Island I suppose. The original story for "The Bat" was written in 1908, and it began as a play.
Moorehead has brought along her female assistant for her stay in the house. She hopes to get some writing done, but then a scandal raises it's head. The local bank president, who also owns the home Moorehead is renting, is found dead while on vacation in the north woods. The cause is said to be a forest fire. His doctor (Vincent Price), was staying with him in his lodge. Price found his body and called police. It turns out that the deceased bank president had been the prime suspect in an embezzlement scheme that robbed investors of a million dollars. One of the investors was the town's chief of police. He suspects foul play in the death of the bank president, but can't prove it. And, he wants his money back.
Meanwhile, earlier in the year and prior to Agnes Moorehead moving in, there had been a series of robberies and murders in and around The House, committed by someone who called himself "The Bat".
Ordinarily, with Vincent Price in the cast, you would already have your culprit. He's a doctor who has a laboratory not far from The Creepy House, and we see him there at night, dissecting bats he has caught in the area in order to study their brains for signs of rabies. If this were a Mad Scientist movie, that would make him a nutjob, and guilty, but this is a Whodunit and the case against Price is far from cut and dried.
There is also The Butler to blame, if you wish. He is brooding and vaguely European, handsome but worn down, so you could do worse than to choose him as your main suspect. I'll not prejudice you toward any one person. Even Agnes Moorehead, savvy and standoffish as she is, doesn't have a clue as to what is going on, which is why she's packin' a pistol and plans to use it on "The Bat", if he gets any ideas about coming back.
But then she discovers he is already in the house. Now she is terrified. It's a big mansion, with all kinds of secret panels and hidden rooms and all the stuff you would expect in a Creepy Old House movie. "The Bat" could be hiding anywhere. You and I have already seen him. In fact, we've been on to him for a while, but while we see him come and go, we have no idea who he is because he wears a black stocking over his head.
Who will survive "The Bat"? Who will be his next victim? And will anyone locate the million dollars that the bank president is said to have stashed?
There's only one way to find out, which is to watch the movie and go into The Creepy Old House yourself, which I highly recommend you do. You'll not be alone in there, so don't worry. You'll have Agnes Moorehead to protect you, and anyway, you'll have a fair idea of where "The Bat" is hiding at any given time, so just stay away from those rooms and you should be okay.
"The Bat" gets Two Big Thumbs Up from me. It's more energetic than most "trapped in a house" movies. Everyone in the cast really buys in to the mystery, and as noted, we aren't stuck inside the house for the entirety of the film. There are other unsettling locations, including Price's lab, and a cabin in the woods. A company called The Film Detective has restored the print to perfection which makes it a joy to watch, because it gives you the feeling of sitting in the theater in 1959, watching it on first release. The spirit of 1950s horror is on full display.
Don't miss "The Bat". In fact, save it for a couple months, to watch around Halloweentime for maximum effect. ////
This is me speaking. It's the next morning once again. I won't make any disclaimers about "starting a blog the night before", haha. I'm enjoying my time off work. I had a nice hike yesterday afternoon up at Aliso Canyon, and I finally got a picture of the Aliso Coyote, which you know if you saw my posts on Facebook or Flickr. It was really nice of him or her to stand still for once! I've been hiking every day, and I went to El Escorpion Park on Sunday. I'm gonna put of my proposed trip to Disneyland for at least a month. That'll give you time to make plans to go with me! :):)
Well, that's all for now. Time to have lunch, then straighten up The Tiny Apartment. Another hike later this afternoon. See you tonight at the Usual Time, tons of love until then. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
We rarely get to see Agnes Moorehead in a leading role, and even though she was entering her campy period by 1959 (as were Bette Davis and Joan Crawford), she is nonetheless on top of her game as a writer of mystery stories who has rented an Old Creepy Home for the summer. The small town is anonymous, fictional, but it could be Long Island I suppose. The original story for "The Bat" was written in 1908, and it began as a play.
Moorehead has brought along her female assistant for her stay in the house. She hopes to get some writing done, but then a scandal raises it's head. The local bank president, who also owns the home Moorehead is renting, is found dead while on vacation in the north woods. The cause is said to be a forest fire. His doctor (Vincent Price), was staying with him in his lodge. Price found his body and called police. It turns out that the deceased bank president had been the prime suspect in an embezzlement scheme that robbed investors of a million dollars. One of the investors was the town's chief of police. He suspects foul play in the death of the bank president, but can't prove it. And, he wants his money back.
Meanwhile, earlier in the year and prior to Agnes Moorehead moving in, there had been a series of robberies and murders in and around The House, committed by someone who called himself "The Bat".
Ordinarily, with Vincent Price in the cast, you would already have your culprit. He's a doctor who has a laboratory not far from The Creepy House, and we see him there at night, dissecting bats he has caught in the area in order to study their brains for signs of rabies. If this were a Mad Scientist movie, that would make him a nutjob, and guilty, but this is a Whodunit and the case against Price is far from cut and dried.
There is also The Butler to blame, if you wish. He is brooding and vaguely European, handsome but worn down, so you could do worse than to choose him as your main suspect. I'll not prejudice you toward any one person. Even Agnes Moorehead, savvy and standoffish as she is, doesn't have a clue as to what is going on, which is why she's packin' a pistol and plans to use it on "The Bat", if he gets any ideas about coming back.
But then she discovers he is already in the house. Now she is terrified. It's a big mansion, with all kinds of secret panels and hidden rooms and all the stuff you would expect in a Creepy Old House movie. "The Bat" could be hiding anywhere. You and I have already seen him. In fact, we've been on to him for a while, but while we see him come and go, we have no idea who he is because he wears a black stocking over his head.
Who will survive "The Bat"? Who will be his next victim? And will anyone locate the million dollars that the bank president is said to have stashed?
There's only one way to find out, which is to watch the movie and go into The Creepy Old House yourself, which I highly recommend you do. You'll not be alone in there, so don't worry. You'll have Agnes Moorehead to protect you, and anyway, you'll have a fair idea of where "The Bat" is hiding at any given time, so just stay away from those rooms and you should be okay.
"The Bat" gets Two Big Thumbs Up from me. It's more energetic than most "trapped in a house" movies. Everyone in the cast really buys in to the mystery, and as noted, we aren't stuck inside the house for the entirety of the film. There are other unsettling locations, including Price's lab, and a cabin in the woods. A company called The Film Detective has restored the print to perfection which makes it a joy to watch, because it gives you the feeling of sitting in the theater in 1959, watching it on first release. The spirit of 1950s horror is on full display.
Don't miss "The Bat". In fact, save it for a couple months, to watch around Halloweentime for maximum effect. ////
This is me speaking. It's the next morning once again. I won't make any disclaimers about "starting a blog the night before", haha. I'm enjoying my time off work. I had a nice hike yesterday afternoon up at Aliso Canyon, and I finally got a picture of the Aliso Coyote, which you know if you saw my posts on Facebook or Flickr. It was really nice of him or her to stand still for once! I've been hiking every day, and I went to El Escorpion Park on Sunday. I'm gonna put of my proposed trip to Disneyland for at least a month. That'll give you time to make plans to go with me! :):)
Well, that's all for now. Time to have lunch, then straighten up The Tiny Apartment. Another hike later this afternoon. See you tonight at the Usual Time, tons of love until then. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Monday, August 12, 2019
"Emperor Of The North" starring Lee Marvin, Keith Carradine and Ernest Borgnine + The Spirit Of Mr.D
(note : this blog was begun Sunday night, August 11, 2019, and finished this morning)
Tonight's movie was "Emperor Of The North" (1973), a story set during the Great Depression about train-hopping hobos and the brutal conductor who tries to stop them. Lee Marvin stars as "A #1", a legendary vagabond who is said to be able to ride any train undetected. The nemesis of all the hobos is "Shack", the sadistic railroad enforcer who carries a hand-sized sledgehammer in his belt to use on any 'bos he finds hiding in his boxcars. " 'Bos" (pronounced as the plural of "boe") is slang for hobos, who during the Depression counted on surreptitious train travel as a means of survival. They road the rails to avoid arrest or detention and also just to keep moving, in search of food or money somewhere down the line. Like today's homeless, they found safety in numbers and cooperation. The railroad owners wanted them off the trains, though, and hired aggressive, near homicidal captains to constantly search the cars (and under the cars) for any hidden tramps. Upon discovering one, a conductor like "Shack" would either pitch him off the train, maybe to land beneath it's iron wheels, or split his skull with the sledgehammer.
Sorry to be so graphic, but this is what is depicted in the movie.
A little aside about how I came to watch it :
Long ago, either in the late 80s or early 90s, my good friend Mr. D raved to me about "Emperor Of The North". He loved it, and I remember one time when he gave me a scene-by-scene description of almost the entire movie. He mentioned it several times over the years and I never forgot the title. I've been doing occasional library searches for it for the last ten years or so, but it's never turned up in the database.
Today, however, I stopped in at West Valley Libe - one of only two area libraries that are open on Sunday - because I needed movies and I was headed in the general direction of the West Valley anyway, to hike at El Scorpion Park and then a few miles south to see the Pink Floyd tribute band "Which One's Pink" play a free concert at Warner Park. While scanning the dvd racks at West Valley Libe, I spied a copy of "Emperor Of The North", which apparently has never been entered into the citywide search engine. But I thought, "Eureka"!, I finally found this movie after all these years. Tonight I would watch it in honor of Mr. D (actual name Dave S.) who passed away in 2008.
I can see what he loved about this film. It's a rollicking adventure that celebrates the life of freedom lived by the Hobos, and their defiance of authority. Dave lived his life in an almost opposite way, rarely free to do what he wanted, always doing as he was told. Consequently I think he had some of the Hobo spirit in him. Not in any desire to be poverty stricken of course, but just to be his own man. Dave had a saying that I've always remembered : "As soon as anybody uses the phrase 'you should', I stop listening". He was talking about unsolicited advice from people who "know best", telling him "You should do this" or "you should do that".
That was Dave's inner rebellious side. It was in his thinking that he was as free as a Hobo. He also loved the outdoors, and was even given the nickname "Yosemite" by one of our friends, in honor of his favorite place in the world. Dave would have been perfectly happy spending all of his time there, and maybe even living outdoors like the Hobos did, except perhaps with a few more modern conveniences and certainly some recorded music.
Finally there are the trains. Dave never mentioned trains specifically and had no obsession with them that I am aware of, but he loved to be "on the go" - he worked as a professional driver for the movie business - and, to me at least, there is something beautiful about trains. Their form, their length, their massive engines and wheels, and the way they travel through the hidden parts of the country, through the backwoods and riversides. If you were a hobo, you could climb on and jump off wherever you pleased, free as a bird in the middle of nowhere, as long as you had a bedroll and something to eat.
For me personally, I could never live that way. For one thing I'd be way too scared. But I think Dave had a little, or maybe a lot, of that spirit inside of him.
Now, in the movie, getting around by train is not all that simple for the hobos. They have to face the constant fear of discovery. The more skilled train-hoppers have mastered the skills of riding undetected on most of the lines, but there is one that none of them will chance : Line #19, which is controlled by Shack (played by Ernest Borgnine). Throwing you off the train would be his second option. He'd likely kill you first. When they are gathered round the campfire at night, the hobos speak furtively of Shack, and how none will dare test him. Someone, though, brings up the name of one man who has supposedly ridden Shack's train and gotten away with it. He is known as "A. Number One" (Lee Marvin). He usually travels alone, but soon he will appear in camp to make good on his boast.
And that is what the movie is basically about. There is no grand plot, nor any social moralizing on the hobo life or the larger context of the Depression. Director Aldrich just gets down into the hobo camps to show you what their life was like, with no editorial comment. It's a buddy movie too. A young Keith Carradine nearly steals the show as an excitable young wannabe named "Cigaret". "Cigaret" constantly brags about his train skills, about how he is the best in the business. He fancies himself as really tough too, but he's skinny enough to blow away in a strong wind, and his hands are a little too clean. He desperately wants to be "A. Number One"'s partner, but Marvin sees him as more of a punk, a fast talking criminal, than a real hobo. But Carradine persists throughout the movie, which provides the story with a light comedic element in the contrasts between the two characters.
Marvin will reluctantly take Carradine under his wing, and now they will go up against Shack together, which might prove more deadly for Marvin than if he had gone it alone.
"Emperor Of The North" is pure 70s adventure with an outlaw flavor, anarchic in it's own way just like "Easy Rider" or "Bonnie & Clyde". It has the look of a Western, shot almost entirely outdoors in the Pacific Northwest by the great Joseph Biroc. It's what you could call a great 70s-style "tough guy" movie, the kind that starred guys like Lee Marvin or Charles Bronson. As "Shack", the deadly conductor, Ernest Borgnine is as frightening as if he had been the guy in real life.
It's also one of the great "train movies" of all time, I think.
I give it Two Big Thumbs Up. When you watch it, tip a glass of homemade campfire hooch in honor of Dave, or maybe roll yourself a stogie. /////
This is yet another movie review I am finishing up the following day. Sigh......(and lol, too). I'm hopeless about staying up too late and then getting too tired to finish, haha, but I swear I will correct the problem! ("yeah right, Ad")......
Well, that's all for now. I am still off work, until Thursday, so I will head out on a hike in a little while. Do ya wanna come with me? Where should we go? I was thinking about going to Disneyland tomorrow, but that would be by myself, and I just don't know if I can do it. I do everything by myself (which sucks "on wheels" as the kids say), but I don't know if D-Land is doable alone.
I guess I'll find out though, sooner or later. Unless you wanna go with me. :):)
See you tonight at the Usual Time. Tons of love until then. Trainloads of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Tonight's movie was "Emperor Of The North" (1973), a story set during the Great Depression about train-hopping hobos and the brutal conductor who tries to stop them. Lee Marvin stars as "A #1", a legendary vagabond who is said to be able to ride any train undetected. The nemesis of all the hobos is "Shack", the sadistic railroad enforcer who carries a hand-sized sledgehammer in his belt to use on any 'bos he finds hiding in his boxcars. " 'Bos" (pronounced as the plural of "boe") is slang for hobos, who during the Depression counted on surreptitious train travel as a means of survival. They road the rails to avoid arrest or detention and also just to keep moving, in search of food or money somewhere down the line. Like today's homeless, they found safety in numbers and cooperation. The railroad owners wanted them off the trains, though, and hired aggressive, near homicidal captains to constantly search the cars (and under the cars) for any hidden tramps. Upon discovering one, a conductor like "Shack" would either pitch him off the train, maybe to land beneath it's iron wheels, or split his skull with the sledgehammer.
Sorry to be so graphic, but this is what is depicted in the movie.
A little aside about how I came to watch it :
Long ago, either in the late 80s or early 90s, my good friend Mr. D raved to me about "Emperor Of The North". He loved it, and I remember one time when he gave me a scene-by-scene description of almost the entire movie. He mentioned it several times over the years and I never forgot the title. I've been doing occasional library searches for it for the last ten years or so, but it's never turned up in the database.
Today, however, I stopped in at West Valley Libe - one of only two area libraries that are open on Sunday - because I needed movies and I was headed in the general direction of the West Valley anyway, to hike at El Scorpion Park and then a few miles south to see the Pink Floyd tribute band "Which One's Pink" play a free concert at Warner Park. While scanning the dvd racks at West Valley Libe, I spied a copy of "Emperor Of The North", which apparently has never been entered into the citywide search engine. But I thought, "Eureka"!, I finally found this movie after all these years. Tonight I would watch it in honor of Mr. D (actual name Dave S.) who passed away in 2008.
I can see what he loved about this film. It's a rollicking adventure that celebrates the life of freedom lived by the Hobos, and their defiance of authority. Dave lived his life in an almost opposite way, rarely free to do what he wanted, always doing as he was told. Consequently I think he had some of the Hobo spirit in him. Not in any desire to be poverty stricken of course, but just to be his own man. Dave had a saying that I've always remembered : "As soon as anybody uses the phrase 'you should', I stop listening". He was talking about unsolicited advice from people who "know best", telling him "You should do this" or "you should do that".
That was Dave's inner rebellious side. It was in his thinking that he was as free as a Hobo. He also loved the outdoors, and was even given the nickname "Yosemite" by one of our friends, in honor of his favorite place in the world. Dave would have been perfectly happy spending all of his time there, and maybe even living outdoors like the Hobos did, except perhaps with a few more modern conveniences and certainly some recorded music.
Finally there are the trains. Dave never mentioned trains specifically and had no obsession with them that I am aware of, but he loved to be "on the go" - he worked as a professional driver for the movie business - and, to me at least, there is something beautiful about trains. Their form, their length, their massive engines and wheels, and the way they travel through the hidden parts of the country, through the backwoods and riversides. If you were a hobo, you could climb on and jump off wherever you pleased, free as a bird in the middle of nowhere, as long as you had a bedroll and something to eat.
For me personally, I could never live that way. For one thing I'd be way too scared. But I think Dave had a little, or maybe a lot, of that spirit inside of him.
Now, in the movie, getting around by train is not all that simple for the hobos. They have to face the constant fear of discovery. The more skilled train-hoppers have mastered the skills of riding undetected on most of the lines, but there is one that none of them will chance : Line #19, which is controlled by Shack (played by Ernest Borgnine). Throwing you off the train would be his second option. He'd likely kill you first. When they are gathered round the campfire at night, the hobos speak furtively of Shack, and how none will dare test him. Someone, though, brings up the name of one man who has supposedly ridden Shack's train and gotten away with it. He is known as "A. Number One" (Lee Marvin). He usually travels alone, but soon he will appear in camp to make good on his boast.
And that is what the movie is basically about. There is no grand plot, nor any social moralizing on the hobo life or the larger context of the Depression. Director Aldrich just gets down into the hobo camps to show you what their life was like, with no editorial comment. It's a buddy movie too. A young Keith Carradine nearly steals the show as an excitable young wannabe named "Cigaret". "Cigaret" constantly brags about his train skills, about how he is the best in the business. He fancies himself as really tough too, but he's skinny enough to blow away in a strong wind, and his hands are a little too clean. He desperately wants to be "A. Number One"'s partner, but Marvin sees him as more of a punk, a fast talking criminal, than a real hobo. But Carradine persists throughout the movie, which provides the story with a light comedic element in the contrasts between the two characters.
Marvin will reluctantly take Carradine under his wing, and now they will go up against Shack together, which might prove more deadly for Marvin than if he had gone it alone.
"Emperor Of The North" is pure 70s adventure with an outlaw flavor, anarchic in it's own way just like "Easy Rider" or "Bonnie & Clyde". It has the look of a Western, shot almost entirely outdoors in the Pacific Northwest by the great Joseph Biroc. It's what you could call a great 70s-style "tough guy" movie, the kind that starred guys like Lee Marvin or Charles Bronson. As "Shack", the deadly conductor, Ernest Borgnine is as frightening as if he had been the guy in real life.
It's also one of the great "train movies" of all time, I think.
I give it Two Big Thumbs Up. When you watch it, tip a glass of homemade campfire hooch in honor of Dave, or maybe roll yourself a stogie. /////
This is yet another movie review I am finishing up the following day. Sigh......(and lol, too). I'm hopeless about staying up too late and then getting too tired to finish, haha, but I swear I will correct the problem! ("yeah right, Ad")......
Well, that's all for now. I am still off work, until Thursday, so I will head out on a hike in a little while. Do ya wanna come with me? Where should we go? I was thinking about going to Disneyland tomorrow, but that would be by myself, and I just don't know if I can do it. I do everything by myself (which sucks "on wheels" as the kids say), but I don't know if D-Land is doable alone.
I guess I'll find out though, sooner or later. Unless you wanna go with me. :):)
See you tonight at the Usual Time. Tons of love until then. Trainloads of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Sunday, August 11, 2019
H.G. Wells' "Things To Come" + Song Leader
Tonight I watched a very early example of science fiction, "Things To Come" (1936), based on a book by H.G. Wells and directed by William Cameron Menzies. It was a spur of the moment viewing - I found the movie at Chatsworth Libe this afternoon. I'd heard of it but had never sought it out because of it's "age". I am not normally a fan of early sci-fi, much of which had a philosophical or political underpinning, but "Things" was on the Criterion label (usually a good sign) and I needed something to watch, so I figured I'd give it a try.
Besides being a genius, H.G. Wells was a futurist who, along with Jules Verne, basically invented the genre of science fiction. You already knew that of course, I was only reiterating it, but in the movie Wells projects us into the future. His book "The Shape Of Things To Come" was written in 1933, and he is already envisioning a "World War Two", which, in the movie, begins on Christmas Day 1940.
So Wells was prophetic, too, and he was only off by a little less than sixteen months.
In "Everytown", which could be London, folks are in the Christmas spirit even though rumors of war are spreading. Newsboys hoist signs and banners proclaiming an imminent breakout of battle. Meanwhile, the film's star Raymond Massey sits in his living room with his family and business partner. They are enjoying the holiday and don't believe that war will come. But suddenly, over the radio there is an announcement of a bombing raid by an anonymous enemy. Within minutes, the city is being decimated. Citizens are running for their lives as buildings are reduced to rubble.
Following this annihlation, the director uses a montage to fast forward us thirty years. We are now in 1970. The same war has been raging all this time, and the two sides have suffered such attrition that their societies are a shadow of what they had once been. "Everytown" is a bombed out ruin now led by a riled-up warlord the locals call "The Boss". He is played by the great British actor Ralph Richardson. At the current time, he and his people are up against a plague that is claiming citizens at a rapid pace. Called "The Wandering Sickness", the disease is eerily reminiscent of that in "The Walking Dead". Just as in that series, those with the illness must be shot. Richardson is the most enthusiastic proponent of the shootings, and as such, he has become the de facto leader. Once Everytown has finished off the last person with The Sickness, which takes a couple of years, Richardson is once again ready to resume the city's war against the Hill People, a ragtag army of folks who were once part of the sophisticated air force that bombed Everytown on Christmas Day all those years ago. In the three decades that have passed, their planes are all gone, as are most vestiges of their society. Both Everytown and the Hill People have seen their once modern societies sent back to nearly hunter/gatherer standards by years of war.
The key to victory, for Ralph Richardson, is the rebuilding of his own stock of damaged aeroplanes, by using spare parts. He has an expert mechanic who can do the job, which if accomplished will get the planes in the air to finish off the Hill People once and for all. But the mechanic informs Richardson, "The Boss", that it won't matter if he can fix the planes, because they have no petrol with which to fly them.
All of this mayhem and aggression takes up close to an hour of the 96 minute film. The story thus far reminded me of Orwell's "1984", and the philosophical points were well stated, the ugly ironies of "eye for an eye" violence that lead to endless war. Then there are the leaders who equate retribution with justice and the sheep-like people who follow them. This is all well and good; Wells' story is a morality tale. The problem as far as the movie was concerned was that a modern viewer is so well acquainted with these postulations that one wishes the film would move on to it's next point.
We are living in a postmodern, ironic society now. We get it. But in the movie, made 83 years ago, it takes one hour to show us all of this.
We in 2019 already know about Communism and Capitalism and Utopianism and all of the "Isms", as John Lennon called them, none of which seem to work. Back in 1936, this was new material, but now, as far as watching an entertaining movie was concerned, this viewer felt dragged down.
Not helping matters was William Cameron Menzie's decision to have his English actors, which included most of the cast up to this point, emote in Shakespearean mode. Ralph Richardson is one of the finest actors England has produced, but here he is so heavy handed as to suck the air out of the plot.
At any rate, it's by no means a bad film up to this point, just overdone. It has the feeling of a stage play in which the actors have been given free reign to express the outrage of Wells' words, so the subtleties are lost and there is no dramatic tension.
Fortunately for us, the movie shifts gears in the final 36 minutes. We are fast forwarded again into 2036 (I think that's the correct year but you can double check it), into a World Of The Future.
Here Menzies gives us some of the art direction and production design he was noted for. Now we are transported into a fantastic era of science, with amazing giant machines to supply power to gadgets of every kind. It's uncanny how prophetic Wells was. The jet age was not yet upon us and rockets to the moon were more than thirty years away, yet here they are in the story. The grandson of Raymond Massey (played by Raymond Massey) is the leader of a group called Wings Over The World who believe that a goal continuing scientific progress is the only way for mankind to live in peace. Man must never cease to learn and explore, or he will bog down again in violent conflict. The Wings Group even have a Peace Gas that they use on crowds to quell disturbances.
But now that everything is peaceful and scientific, there rises another leader who questions the need for Endless Progress ( hmmm, he could be me, haha). He is an artist who feels that the constant quest for The New leaves humanity with no chance to rest and enjoy what they already have. This is H.G. Wells arguing with himself, making the case for both sides, and it leads to some far more interesting dialogue and philosophical interplay than we saw in the first half of the film.
That is all I will give you of the story, and I hope I haven't revealed too much, but I needed to tell you a little bit about the final act because it makes sitting through the first half of the film very worthwhile.
I am gonna give "Things To Come" Two Regular Thumbs Up, but those thumbs are waving with extra enthusiasm for the 36 minute Sci-Fi finale, which features some very awesome looking futuristic set design (the future will be Art Deco!), and makes good use of models and miniatures too.
"Things To Come" is highly recommended for sci-fi fans, certainly worth a look despite it's faults. /////
This is me chiming in. It's now Sunday afternoon. I am back from church. I got to be the song leader today, as our regular lady was absent. It was my first time in front of the microphone for every song in the service, and I very much enjoyed it. I got to "sing lead" as it were, on four hymns and our anthem. Hopefully they will give me a chance to do it again. :)
This has been yet another blog that I began the night before and finished the following afternoon. I think it happens because I get too in depth with my movie reviews, and when it is late night, I can sometimes "write myself into a corner", where I haven't the energy to get back out, to make my point and make sure all my sentences are properly formed. So, I either have to stop droning on so much, or try harder to stay awake, or something, so that I can get back to finishing each blog on the night it was begun.
Well anyway.........I might go to Warner Park in Woodland Hills later on. The Pink Floyd tribute band "Which One's Pink" will be playing there at 6:30. Maybe I'll see ya there, and I will definitely see you back here tonight, at the usual time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Besides being a genius, H.G. Wells was a futurist who, along with Jules Verne, basically invented the genre of science fiction. You already knew that of course, I was only reiterating it, but in the movie Wells projects us into the future. His book "The Shape Of Things To Come" was written in 1933, and he is already envisioning a "World War Two", which, in the movie, begins on Christmas Day 1940.
So Wells was prophetic, too, and he was only off by a little less than sixteen months.
In "Everytown", which could be London, folks are in the Christmas spirit even though rumors of war are spreading. Newsboys hoist signs and banners proclaiming an imminent breakout of battle. Meanwhile, the film's star Raymond Massey sits in his living room with his family and business partner. They are enjoying the holiday and don't believe that war will come. But suddenly, over the radio there is an announcement of a bombing raid by an anonymous enemy. Within minutes, the city is being decimated. Citizens are running for their lives as buildings are reduced to rubble.
Following this annihlation, the director uses a montage to fast forward us thirty years. We are now in 1970. The same war has been raging all this time, and the two sides have suffered such attrition that their societies are a shadow of what they had once been. "Everytown" is a bombed out ruin now led by a riled-up warlord the locals call "The Boss". He is played by the great British actor Ralph Richardson. At the current time, he and his people are up against a plague that is claiming citizens at a rapid pace. Called "The Wandering Sickness", the disease is eerily reminiscent of that in "The Walking Dead". Just as in that series, those with the illness must be shot. Richardson is the most enthusiastic proponent of the shootings, and as such, he has become the de facto leader. Once Everytown has finished off the last person with The Sickness, which takes a couple of years, Richardson is once again ready to resume the city's war against the Hill People, a ragtag army of folks who were once part of the sophisticated air force that bombed Everytown on Christmas Day all those years ago. In the three decades that have passed, their planes are all gone, as are most vestiges of their society. Both Everytown and the Hill People have seen their once modern societies sent back to nearly hunter/gatherer standards by years of war.
The key to victory, for Ralph Richardson, is the rebuilding of his own stock of damaged aeroplanes, by using spare parts. He has an expert mechanic who can do the job, which if accomplished will get the planes in the air to finish off the Hill People once and for all. But the mechanic informs Richardson, "The Boss", that it won't matter if he can fix the planes, because they have no petrol with which to fly them.
All of this mayhem and aggression takes up close to an hour of the 96 minute film. The story thus far reminded me of Orwell's "1984", and the philosophical points were well stated, the ugly ironies of "eye for an eye" violence that lead to endless war. Then there are the leaders who equate retribution with justice and the sheep-like people who follow them. This is all well and good; Wells' story is a morality tale. The problem as far as the movie was concerned was that a modern viewer is so well acquainted with these postulations that one wishes the film would move on to it's next point.
We are living in a postmodern, ironic society now. We get it. But in the movie, made 83 years ago, it takes one hour to show us all of this.
We in 2019 already know about Communism and Capitalism and Utopianism and all of the "Isms", as John Lennon called them, none of which seem to work. Back in 1936, this was new material, but now, as far as watching an entertaining movie was concerned, this viewer felt dragged down.
Not helping matters was William Cameron Menzie's decision to have his English actors, which included most of the cast up to this point, emote in Shakespearean mode. Ralph Richardson is one of the finest actors England has produced, but here he is so heavy handed as to suck the air out of the plot.
At any rate, it's by no means a bad film up to this point, just overdone. It has the feeling of a stage play in which the actors have been given free reign to express the outrage of Wells' words, so the subtleties are lost and there is no dramatic tension.
Fortunately for us, the movie shifts gears in the final 36 minutes. We are fast forwarded again into 2036 (I think that's the correct year but you can double check it), into a World Of The Future.
Here Menzies gives us some of the art direction and production design he was noted for. Now we are transported into a fantastic era of science, with amazing giant machines to supply power to gadgets of every kind. It's uncanny how prophetic Wells was. The jet age was not yet upon us and rockets to the moon were more than thirty years away, yet here they are in the story. The grandson of Raymond Massey (played by Raymond Massey) is the leader of a group called Wings Over The World who believe that a goal continuing scientific progress is the only way for mankind to live in peace. Man must never cease to learn and explore, or he will bog down again in violent conflict. The Wings Group even have a Peace Gas that they use on crowds to quell disturbances.
But now that everything is peaceful and scientific, there rises another leader who questions the need for Endless Progress ( hmmm, he could be me, haha). He is an artist who feels that the constant quest for The New leaves humanity with no chance to rest and enjoy what they already have. This is H.G. Wells arguing with himself, making the case for both sides, and it leads to some far more interesting dialogue and philosophical interplay than we saw in the first half of the film.
That is all I will give you of the story, and I hope I haven't revealed too much, but I needed to tell you a little bit about the final act because it makes sitting through the first half of the film very worthwhile.
I am gonna give "Things To Come" Two Regular Thumbs Up, but those thumbs are waving with extra enthusiasm for the 36 minute Sci-Fi finale, which features some very awesome looking futuristic set design (the future will be Art Deco!), and makes good use of models and miniatures too.
"Things To Come" is highly recommended for sci-fi fans, certainly worth a look despite it's faults. /////
This is me chiming in. It's now Sunday afternoon. I am back from church. I got to be the song leader today, as our regular lady was absent. It was my first time in front of the microphone for every song in the service, and I very much enjoyed it. I got to "sing lead" as it were, on four hymns and our anthem. Hopefully they will give me a chance to do it again. :)
This has been yet another blog that I began the night before and finished the following afternoon. I think it happens because I get too in depth with my movie reviews, and when it is late night, I can sometimes "write myself into a corner", where I haven't the energy to get back out, to make my point and make sure all my sentences are properly formed. So, I either have to stop droning on so much, or try harder to stay awake, or something, so that I can get back to finishing each blog on the night it was begun.
Well anyway.........I might go to Warner Park in Woodland Hills later on. The Pink Floyd tribute band "Which One's Pink" will be playing there at 6:30. Maybe I'll see ya there, and I will definitely see you back here tonight, at the usual time.
Tons of love. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)