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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Franchot Tone Double Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you freaking believe that? 

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

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

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

Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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