A Powell & Pressburger Spy Flick (yay!) and a Chames Mason Noir (but it's not)

How about a spy thriller by the team of Powell & Pressburger? You remember P&P, don't you? We did a retrospective of their films at the CSUN Cinematheque, back in Fall 2014. They always worked in tandem, with Michael Powell directing and Emeric Pressburger writing the screenplays. P&P were similar to the Hollywood Craftsmen in that they were capable of making any type of motion picture and indeed they did, producing everything from the wistful romance "I Know Where I'm Going" to the Technicolor dance fantasy "The Red Shoes", to "Peeping Tom", one of the creepiest crime flicks (bordering on downright horror) since "Psycho", which came out the same year, in 1960. The duo also made several war-related movies, like the classic "49th Parallel", "Blackout", and "The Small Back Room". And tonight, thanks to another Youtube recommendation, we discovered their espionage gem "The Spy in Black"(1939), an early P&P effort that has been restored to cinematic perfection by the British Film Institute.

The legendary Conrad Veidt (from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari") stars as "Captain Ernst Hart", the commander of German U-Boat 29, which is sent to the Orkney Islands north of Scotland (pronounced Skiort-lnd or Skeert-lnd), to sink a dozen Royal Navy ships stationed therein. Please note that Scottish pronunciations will take more practice than most of the dialects we've encountered, so perseverance is stressed. 

Britttissh Intelligence, as always being aware of plots hatched against them, are on to Veidt's surprise attack, thanks to a female counterspy they've installed at Orkney in the form of a schoolteacher (Valerie Hobson). Naturally there will be a romantic subplot, as the angular Veidt - with his German Expressionist face - presses Hobson for a tryst. But she's posing as his superior officer, the woman in charge of the U-Boat mission, and is therefore successful in rebuffing him by chain of command. But in reality, Hobson is a counterspy, working with "Lieutenant Ashington" (Sebastian Shaw) of the Royal Navy who is posing as a traitor to fool the Germans.

The story is even more confusing at first than last night's "Yellow Canary", and has it's hard-to-decipher segments of Britspeak as well. But you are hooked from Frame One by the impeccable camera eye of Michael Powell, one of the greatest photographers in all of cinema, with a talent for composition that is second to none. We were talking in the last blog about Hollywood Craftsmen vs. Auteurs, and I suppose you could say that P&P qualify as both. We've already noted their abilities as Craftsmen (though they didn't work in Hollywood), but they also left their own stamp on each picture - a mark of the Auteur. For instance, there are bits of English humor that you wouldn't normally see in a spy film, as when Veidt, as "Captain Hart", is being prepped to impersonate an Englishman during his furtive stay in Orkney. Due to the war, there are food shortages in the UK but even moreso in Germany, so when Veidt sees a large block of butter on the table of his language coach, he exclaims : "Ah, finally some butter"!, pronouncing it "boo-ter". His coach has to correct him on this word later at a restaurant, and it becomes one of the light-hearted running gags that P&P sprinkle throughout the film. Another one involves an engine room sergeant on a British destroyer, who every so often pops his head up from below decks to complain, in Scotty/Star Trek style but using Cockney slang, that he'll never be able to generate enough power to satisfy the captain's orders.

A similar light touch marks almost all of Powell and Pressburger's movies (with the exception of "Peeping Tom), that you might call a trademark English optimism of the kind seen in Monty Python's Knight, even after all his limbs are sliced off.

Veidt was an incredible actor, however, and he's mostly here to inject menace. I don't wanna reveal too much of the plot because one spoiler could ruin the whole story, but there will be a point where Veidt is in deep trouble and will pull out a technique from his Silent film days. You'll know it when you see it; his facial expressions in this scene are harrowing and he looks like a man who is actually in this situation in real life.

The lovely Valerie Hobson (a P&P regular) goes toe-to-toe with Veidt, matching him scene for scene as his superior officer, the spy turned schoolmarm. And yes, "The Spy in Black" features grade-A espionage, but it's also part Submarine Movie, so you'll get a minor sub fix and also some highly detailed close ups of the English destroyer's artillery at work : the loading of the shells, the hydraulic aiming system. It's incredible stuff, and as with the rest of the movie, Michael Powell gives it a look that is hyperrealistic, using a full grey scale that is somehow richer than the sum of it's parts. This is one great looking picture, and I was happy to see that it's been restored by the British Film Institute, so the Youtube print is Criterion quality.

Man, we've been on a roll with these English Spy Flicks, and I could watch a dozen more, at least, so let's keep looking. "The Spy in Black" gets Two Huge Thumbs Up and is not to be missed, it's the best one we've seen so far.  ///////

And now for our second feature :

Last night I stepped away from the spy game just on a whim, and I kind of wish I hadn't. Instead of browsing my trusted movie lists, I chose the first recommendation that popped up on Youtube. They base those on your viewing history, and in my case their suggestions have usually been pretty good. This one looked promising as well, a noir entitled "One Way Street", and best of all it starred Chames Mason. How could I go wrong, right? Mason is never less than stellar and his co-star Dan Duryea delivers in every film regardless of the role. Add in the movie's title and it sounded like you had a heck of a hard-boiled noir.

But as one reviewer noted, it's really an Oreo cookie of a noir : dark on the outside but white and fluffy in the middle. It's like the director wanted to make a humanistic film but didn't have a context in which to frame it, so he chose film noir. Strange is the direction this picture takes, and I will now explain it to you.

The movie opens in the aftermath of a bank robbery. Dan Duryea is the boss of the operation, one of those "legitimate businessman" hoodlums with henchmen in tow, in this case several stooges who pull off the bank job while he waits in a hotel, ready to divide up the take of 200 Grand. But something's gone wrong - one of his boys has not yet returned, and of the two who are back at the hotel, one has been shot. Duryea remains calm enough to summon his crooked doctor, who happens to be stationed down the hall. That is Mason, who removes the bullet from the wounded man's arm, then tends to Duryea with some asprin for a headache. After some tough-guy talk between the hoods, Mason picks up his bag to leave, but then Duryea notices that he's got a second satchel in hand - the one with the money in it.

"Whataya think you're doing"?, he demands.

"Exactly what it looks like", Mason tells him, as he strides towards the door with the 200k in bank money. "I've just given you a pill that will cause convulsions within 30 minutes and death within an hour. Before you shoot me you should know I have an antidote, which I have hidden but will reveal the location by phone if you allow me to leave this room. And really.....what choice do you have"?

All of this is recited in the most Chames Mason-est of tones, and I urge you to picture it for yourself.

Okay, so Duryea allows Mason to leave, with the promise of the antidote callback, but Mason goes one step further by taking Duryea's gal with him, too. That's the final straw : "You'd better just let me die", he snarls at Mason, "because I'm gonna find you and kill you no matter how long it takes".

"No, I'm  man of my word", Mason replies. "I shall call you within an hour as I promised".

But once they are in his car, Mason tells "Laura" (Marta Toren) that there's no need to call Duryea back. "I only gave him an asprin, but he fell for it", meaning the poison pill deception. But he knows that once Duryea figures this out, he's gonna come looking for them, so he has a plan. "We're going to Mexico City", he tells his new ladyfriend.

Okay, so far so good, right? An excellent noir set-up. But all of this only takes 10 or 15 minutes, and now the movie is gonna take such a turn that it becomes a different picture altogether. To get to Mexico City, the pair cross the border then ditch Mason's car, figuring Duryea could trace it. Mason then hires a local pilot to fly them there, but on the way, his Cessna's fuel pump breaks down and they are forced to land in a rural area. Freezing in a field in the middle of the night, they are discovered by a priest from a small Mexican village, who invites them back to his adobe for some food and a place to sleep. Okay fine, but is the chase still on?

No, it isn't. What happens is that, over the next few scenes a transformation occurs. Suddenly, Laura, previously Duryea's gangster moll, is now wearing peasant clothing, preferring to stay in the small Mexican village rather than accompany Mason to Mexico City. She's decided she likes the stress-free lifestyle. For his part, Mason is still planning to leave as soon as the pilot's plane is repaired. But five minutes later, he's become a convert too, after using his medical skills to heal a farmer's sick horse. Suddenly he's like a Saint to the superstitious villagers, who previously relied on a Witch Doctress to treat their ailments. Mason decides he likes using his skills for good, whereas before he always felt guilty stitching up bullet riddled criminals.

"Okay, Ad......but is the chase still on"?

No, I told ya it's not. I mean, there are occasional cutaways to the hotel room back in an unnamed American city, where Dan Duryea fumes to sidekick William Conrad. "Have you traced that licence plate yet?! Well get on it already"!!

But basically the noir is over until the last ten minutes of the 79 minute picture. What you get in the middle hour is more or less a human interest story about Mason's transformation from amoral MD to third world missionary. It's like he's joined the Peace Corps all of a sudden, and it's such a 180 for his character that you have a hard time believing it. It's true that Mason specialised in playing Men Torn. Witness his conscience-stricken IRA terrorist in the classic "Odd Man Out". So you could say this change of heart is par for the Masonic course, but there are other problems as well. Nothing really adds up or amounts to anything in the plot, such as when Laura is briefly terrorised by a trio of village banditos. Nothing comes of this diversion, so there was really no reason to include it. There is less than meets the eye here, and the ending is so manipulative and just plain unfair that you feel as if the director wanted to put you through the wringer.

Having said all of that, it's not a boring film by any means. It moves, and it'll hold your interest. But it's too far fetched, and it's not a real noir, so even with Mason's presence I can't recommend it, unless you need a Chames Mason fix. One Thumb Up, for his performance, otherwise skip it.  /////

That's all for the moment. Daylight savings time is here, hooray for long evenings! Have a great one yourself, and tons of love as always.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

A Two-Fer of English Espionage : "The Yellow Canary" and "The Two-Headed Spy"

Tonight's war movie fell once again into the espionage subgenre, and as a matter of fact so does it's co-feature. I actually chose "The Yellow Canary"(1943) because it came up as a recommendation after last night's "The Two-Headed Spy"; both had the same screenwriter, a gentleman named Miles Malleson. In "Canary", Anna Neagle stars as "Sally Maitland" a young woman scorned by her upper middle-class English family during WW2 because of her apparent sympathy toward Nazi Germany. Her attitude stems from having lived in Deutchland before the war and experiencing it's rise from the ashes after Hitler took power. At the dinner table, her views are roundly condemned. She's seen as unpatriotic (and worse), especially in a family where everyone is serving the war effort, including her younger sister Bette, who's joined the Royal Navy.

Sally tries going out on the town with her boyfriend, but is shunned at a local club where the patrons talk behind her back. Ultimately, she feels like a pariah in London, so she boards a ship headed for Halifax, Nova Scotia, where she plans to live in exile. Though it isn't explained at first why she chooses that city, you'll later find out.

During the voyage, she strikes up a conversation with a Polish man, Jan Orlock, who hates the Nazis with a passion, as his Warsaw home was bombed by the Lufwaffe, leaving his mother blind and crippled. She's moved to Halifax and he's on his way there to reunite with her. While at sea, he falls in love with Sally despite her pro-German views, which are never vociferously expressed in any event. He has some competition, however, from a second gentleman, one "Lieutenant James Garrick" (Richard Greene), a handsome chap wearing a smart Navy uniform. Garrick also chats Sally up, drawing the ire of Orlock, who does some snooping around and finds out that Garrick is with British Naval Intelligence.

Hmmmm.......why is he asking Sally so many personal questions, Orlock wonders. Does it have anything to do with her political views? Is Garrick in fact spying on her? We'll learn the answer to this eventually, but many more questions will present themselves as the plot opens up when we disembark at Halifax. I have to cut in here to ask if you've ever heard of the Halifax Explosion of 1917. I had not, nor was I aware that the city was a major military port during WW1, when the explosion took place. You can Google it for more details, but it figures into the film, and when it occurred it was the largest man-made explosion in history.

"The Yellow Canary" is a little confusing to begin with, in part - at least in my opinion - because it was not adapted for American audiences. It's an entirely Brrrittish production, and Veddy Much So at that, and I don't know if you've ever noticed this, but the Brits speak rapidly, and in movies made for UK audiences, the characters use a syntax that includes slang and colloquialisms that we in the US aren't familiar with. When you combine the speed of their speech with the unfamiliar phrasing, it's sometimes hard to understand a plot reference (at least for me), and so I had to hit "pause" and "rewind" a few times to sort out what I was hearing. However, this is a terrific movie with excellent twists, and just when you think it's getting too complicated to understand, all the knots will come untied and every last detail will be explained. Man, what a finish! I give it Two Big Thumbs Up, you won't find a better spy movie anywhere, and the print is good too.

Now, hang on a sec, because.......did I just say "you won't find a better spy movie anywhere" ? Well you may not, but I've got one just as good, with the script once again written by the aforementioned Miles Malleson. It's called "The Two-Headed Spy"(1958), a riveting thriller starring British actor Jack Hawkins as "General Alex Schottland", an Anglo-German Nazi who long ago renounced his half-English heritage to fight for the Fatherland in World War One. By the time of the Third Reich, he has risen to become a member of Hitler's General Staff. Schottland oversees the Wehrmacht's supply lines, and has done such a good job of keeping the war machine well oiled that he's become one of Der Fuhrer's most favored advisors.

What Adolf doesn't know is that he's a spy, actually loyal to England, and that he's been working with a contact to get messages back to London, with up-to-date information on German military plans and positions. His go-to is a little old antique dealer in Berlin (pronun.), whose connections to British Intelligence are well hidden.

Things run smoothly for General Shottland until he is assigned an assistant, a young captain who comes from the Gestapo. As a former member of the secret police, he is naturally suspicious of Schottland's half-English parentage, and tries several times to trip him up in conversation, to get him to reveal his true loyalties. But Schottland is so skilled in diversion that he turns all suspicions back on the heads of his accusers. As a confidant of Hitler himself, he reports these detractors as "defeatists", a sure death sentence for them. It is only because he has the ear of Mueller, the Gestapo chief, that the captain is able to escape such a fate. He will continue to try and spring traps for Gen. Schottland, however, and throughout the movie this will provide the tension in the plot. There is also a romantic interest played by the beautiful Gia Scala, as a nightclub singer who is possibly involved in the intrigue.

What's really noteworthy about this gripping film is that it was based on a book by a real life British spy named A.P. Scotland. As you can see, his last name was Germanised for the name of the lead character. He's supposed to be "General Schottland", so while you're watching you're going "OMG! Was there really an English spy in Hitler's cabinet"? I won't give any secrets away, and even if you read about A.P. Scotland it's hard to determine the truth, but in the movie "General Schottland" is portrayed as being in The Bunker right after Hitler's suicide, and if that's true it's a mindblower. The thing is, the Brits are the best at the spy game, they've always been acknowledged as such, and they play their cards so close to the vest and throw so much mud into the water that we'll probably never know the whole truth about the things they've accomplished in their various guises as MI-5 and MI-6, et al.

Jack Hawkins projects military bearing and authority as "Schottland", who operates inside The Lion's Den and must have balls of steel to not only stay alive but to sabotage German war plans, such as The Battle of The Bulge. Once again, if this stuff is true........holy smokes. folks! Look for actor Hawkins in another classic Brrrittish war film, "The Cruel Sea".

Like "The Yellow Canary", "The Two-Headed Spy" gets Two Big Thumbs Up, so it's a double home run for screenwriter Malleson. Also worth mentioning is that "Two-Headed" was directed by yet another top Hollywood Craftsman, Andre de Toth. For my money, the Craftsmen are every bit as talented as the directors from the later Auteur school-of-thought, and should be acknowledged as such. That's why I always trumpet their names. /////

Well, there you have it. Another great Two-Fer. Both of these flicks are guaranteed to please, so don't miss 'em. And have a great evening!

Tons.......tons.......and tons..........of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

A Good WW2 Double Feature : "Eight Iron Men" and "Tonight We Raid Calais"

This blog was begun Tuesday night, March 9 2021 :

Well, guess what? Tonight's film was once again based on a play, was dialogue heavy, and was stylistically not what I expected when I chose it from a list of "old black and white war movies", our main genre of late. It sounds like I was in the same sinking boat I found myself in while watching "Tight Spot" the other night. So why was I able to not only endure "Eight Iron Men"(1952), but to find it redeeming enough to warrant a positive review? Two words come to mind : brevity and precision. While there was Endless Yammering in both films, "Eight"'s wordy wanderings were divided between several characters, and the editing was sharp, whereas in "Tight Spot" the director allowed Ginger Rogers to riff ad nauseam in Brooklynese, with no cutaway, and thus no chance for the audience to come up for air.

"Eight Iron Men" stars Lee Marvin as an Army Sergeant heading up a platoon of G.I.s hunkered down in a bombed-out village in Italy. This is a set-piece, with one location, but it looks very realistic and the director was Edward Dmytryk, another top level Hollywood Craftsman, who made everything from the weird Karloff Klassic "The Devil Commands", to the well-known noirs "Murder, My Sweet" and "Crossfire", to the epic "Raintree County" with Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor, to the major war release "The Young Lions" starring Marlon Brando. In other words, Dmytryk (who was one of the Hollywood Ten blacklist), knew how to put a film together no matter the content, so even though "Eight" is not an action based combat movie, it still looks great, moves well, and the acting is uniformly good.

The main character is actually not Marvin's "Sgt. Mooney" but the wisecracking "Pvt. Collucci", played by Bonar Colleano, whose name is unfamiliar but you're sure to recognise his face. He will do most of the talking in the 80 minute picture, constantly joking to break the tension. As the movie opens, three of the men are out on patrol when they are opened up on by a German machine gun nest. Two of them manage to make it back to their outpost, a crumbling brick house, but the third falls and becomes trapped in a muddy bomb pit. Sgt. Mooney decides that there's no way to rescue their comrade until nightfall as the machine gunner still lays in wait. This causes a huge bone of contention between Mooney and "Private Coke" (Richard Kiley), a gung-ho G.I. who wants to pull the soldier out of the pit now. Kiley doesn't seem to care that Marvin's in charge; he yells back at his Sergeant as if he's on equal footing, until Marvin threatens to deck him. Meanwhile, "Private Collucci" cracks one-liners to keep the fracas from boiling over. Actor Colleano bears a resemblance to Alan Alda, and his vocal delivery is eerily similar, so much so that his endless jokes sound like a scene from M.A.S.H. He has foils in some of the other soldiers (there are eight in all), and this repartee does go on a bit long, but not to the extent it did in "Tight Spot", where you were fighting to stay above water.

The whole plot boils down to Arguing The Moral Imperative : should the men attempt to rescue the trapped soldier immediately, with high risk to their own lives (Kiley's position), or should they wait, because it's not worth risking the entire platoon, and besides, they don't even know if the soldier's still alive (Lee Marvin's stance). Adding to the pressure is that the squad is scheduled to move out the next day. Their hard-case captain (stationed down the road) won't make any exceptions for a man left behind. If they don't extricate their buddy soon, they'll lose the chance. Then he'll certainly die if he hasn't already. 

The main reason to watch this film is that it looks great and the actors are excellent. Really, you could substitute the plot for "12 Angry Men" and you'd have the same format. It's an Argument Film, peppered with corny jokes (and a dream sequence about a gorgeous woman), with about ten minutes of actual combat at the beginning and end. I'm gonna give "Eight Iron Men" just Two Regular Thumbs, but I still say you should watch it, just because Short Films Rule and this one delivers despite it's drawbacks.  ////  

The previous night's War Flick was action-oriented, and as a result was a bit more involving. It was the Veddy Britttissh "Tonight We Raid Calais"(1943), directed by John Brahm, yet another Hollywood Craftsman (born in Germany) who helmed everything from classic horror movies ("The Lodger", "Hangover Square"), to truckloads of episodic television, including "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and twelve episodes of "The Twilight Zone". His name helped cinch me on this flick, in addition to seeing on it's IMDB page that the movie is a favorite of Quentin Tarantino's. Though his own films are hit-and-miss for me (mostly miss), Q does know his Hollywood history, so his recommendation lent the picture some weight.

Very briefly, John Sutton stars as an English commando, who volunteers to trek into German-held territory in France, in order to locate a munitions plant and mark it for bombing by the RAF. He makes his way to the town of Calais (and-a-hey-and-a-hey), where he meets a family of French farmers who direct him to the factory. It's located right on the outskirts of their property. This leads to the plot conundrum of collaboration, which we dealt with the other night. The father (Lee J. Cobb, doing his best to imply a French accent) is willing to hide John Sutton in his barn, at the risk of his entire family being shot if Sutton is discovered by the Nazis. Cobb's daughter (French actress Anabella), doesn't want him there. Her brother was killed by a Brit fighting on the German side; thus she hates all Englishmen. To complicate matters, she is being courted (meaning "forced to comply") by a Nazi suitor (played by Howard Da Silva hiding a Brooklyn accent). He visits their farmhouse on a regular basis, which will make it difficult to keep Commando Sutton hidden. A solution to this problem is arrived at by Sutton himself, that he will impersonate the deceased son. He speaks fluent French, so this deception will allow him to mingle among the villagers and recruit more help for the subterfuge. The catch is that no one besides the family members know the Cobb son is dead.

Or do they?  /////

I know we've been stuck on war films, but these two are short and tight. "Tonight We Raid Calais" runs just 70 minutes, the plot and action flow swiftly, and like Edward Dmytryk, John Brahm knows his way around a camera and a movie set. Both "Eight Iron Men" and "Calais" look fantastic; I'm giving the latter Two Big Thumbs Up. Tarantino was right, it's a Good 'Un, and you should watch both films back-to-back. You can get in and out in two and a half hours for the double feature. Need I add that both flicks are in Beautiful Black & White?

That's all I've got for the moment. Still workin' on early Beatles in the afternoon (I'm up to "Beatles '65") and Mahler at night (the 4th symphony). Still reading about Sir Paul McCartney, too.

Have an awesome day. I'm gonna do a CSUN walk before it starts raining again, then back to Pearl's.

Tons and tons of love.   xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

"Sailor of the King" (excellent) and "Tight Spot" (oy)

I'm running a little bit late again, but here's last night's blog :

Tonight's movie was an excellent adventure called "Sailor of the King", starring Jeffrey Hunter as a Canadian signalman enlisted in the British navy during WW2. He's sailing with a convoy that is tasked with locating and destroying the "Essex", a powerful German "raider" with long-range guns that has been causing havoc for the British fleet in the Pacific. This is another one of those points where I must cut in and say that I had no idea the Royal Navy ever was operating in the Pacific Ocean. Didn't a similar issue come up a few blogs ago? Well anyway, apparently they did have ships in the Pacific (WW2 extended to the far corners of the globe) and in the story, Hunter's co-star Michael Rennie is leading the convoy in one of three battleships. In their first confrontation with the Essex, one of the Royal ships is sunk. Rennie is now doubly determined to catch and sink the German behemoth, but the plot structure is unusual and it's only half his film.

Let me explain. The movie opens with a ten minute sequence that, as the film progresses, seems so out of place that it's like it was inserted from a different movie altogether. Following the opening credits, a younger Rennie boards a train, headed for home and some R&R in the middle of World War One. He's already a Navy captain, but in his compartment on the train he meets a very proper and reserved English lady (Wendy Hiller), and after she attempts to ignore him, soon they are engaged in conversation and within five minutes (in movie time) they're in love, staying at an Inn after she misses her stop. What's unusual about this segment is that it's fully developed as a dramatic sequence, so much so that - as the opening scene in the film - you are wondering if you clicked on the wrong movie. Wendy Hiller was a legendary actress (and Rennie was very good as well), and so for the first ten or twelve minutes you are watching what looks like a classic English Period Romance. Near the end of the sequence, Rennie has proposed to Hiller but she declines, saying that a sailor will always love the sea more than any woman. It's played as heartbreaking, and as the movie shifts into the main plot - that of a naval battle  - you are left wondering "what was that opening sequence all about"?

And as the story shifts, so does it's main star. Jeffrey Hunter takes over, as a sailor who is determined to sabotage the Essex after he is taken aboard the German ship, as a survivor of the sunken English vessel. He is willing to give his life in the effort, because he knows the rest of the convoy is on it's way and will eventually catch up to the Essex, which is now anchored in the Galapagos Islands. This is a Grade A movie, with superb battle scenes and top notch black and white photography, including some incredible artillery footage. Jeff Hunter is a dedicated action hero, and Michael Rennie (best known as the Alien in "Day the Earth Stood Still)" is appropriately dignified and stoic as the fleet Commander. Peter van Eyck is good as always as the platinum blonde German captain, and overall this is one of the best Navy films we've seen in some time, running tight and fast at 82 minutes.

But still, you're gonna be wondering "what's the deal with that opening sequence"?

And you may just get an answer. Of course, I can't tell you if you do or not, but by all means watch "Sailor of the King". It's highly recommended and gets Two Big Thumbs Up from me.  /////

I wish I could say the same for Saturday night's movie : "Tight Spot"(1955), starring Ginger Rogers as a brassy broad from Brooklyn with the proverbial Heart of Gold, who is doing time in a New York women's prison for crimes unspecified. Shortly after the movie opens, she's offered a commutation of her sentence if she will testify in Federal court against a big league Italian Mafioso (Lorne Greene) with whom she's had a fleeting acquaintance. The Feds, headed up by Edward G. Robinson, have been trying to get this crook for ages. Finally they have a charge that will stick; he's recently entered the country illegally, on a rich crony's yacht. As a model and Good Time Gal, Ginger was on that yacht. Edward G. implores her to do the right thing and testify against Greene, promising the full protection of the U.S. Federal Justice System, but she's aware that a previous witness was assassinated on his way to the Grand Jury. No wonder she's reluctant to agree to Robinson's deal, even if it means getting out of prison. Indeed, "It's the only place I feel safe", she tells him. But he pulls her out of prison anyway, just to try and convince her.

At present, she is holed up in the St. Charles Hotel with Detective Brian Keith as her protector. He's from NYPD and working under the aegis of Robinson and the Feds. To prime Ginger, they offer her carte blanche on the hotel's swanky menu. Keith also starts to fall for her and spends his own money to buy her a beautiful dress. But she's just not gonna talk. Lorne Greene and his henchmen are too deadly, and all-pervading. Heck, the police have already stopped two attempts by the bad guys to enter the hotel and do away with Miss Ginger, so who can blame her for keeping a zipped lip?

I always check IMDB before watching any movie on Youtube, just to look at it's rating number and to take a quick glance at the most prominently placed review. "Tight Spot" had a 6.6, which is pretty good considering the fickle fans of filmdom. It was described as a Noir, and the fan review posted at the bottom of the page referred to the title this way : "'Tight Spot'  - an excellent position to be in". That was enough to sell me, so I pressed play, saw that the print was not only razor sharp but in widescreen, and I settled in for what I expected to be not only an exciting noir, but one with a notable cast and grade-A budget. And on all of those counts I was not disappointed.

How.....ever (and this is one of those Howevers where you have to separate the syllables, or at least the "How" and the "ever", and draw out the distance between them, because you are trying to show an Abrupt Turnaround in your opinion of the film. In short, you must make "Howwwww........evvverr" sound like a Long, Slow Pronouncement.

Did you do your "however"? Okay, good. Mine amounted to this : I went in expecting a noir, and for the first ten minutes, it looked like that was what I was gonna get. The first witness was shot dead on the courthouse steps right after the movie began. Then they cut to the prison, where Ginger Rogers was called to the Warden's office for her chance to be released.

Okay fine. But then she winds up her room at the St. Charles Hotel with Brian Keith, and for the next 70 minutes, the noir goes out the window and you are subjected to a barrage of words that even the hardiest viewer will be recoiling from. 

This is another movie I hate to criticize, in this case because Rogers is the centerpiece, and if there was ever a likable actress it is Ginger Rogers, especially in her non-Astaire films where she was proving herself on her own. Her range was not wide, but in the films we've seen and reviewed, she always turned in a quality dramatic performance, playing down to earth characters with a light comedic touch.

In short, we love Ginger here at the blog, because how can you not, but it is with regret that I admit I found myself in a "Tight Spot" as well, as to whether or not I was gonna make it through the movie........

Because it wasn't really a noir, but a wordfest, set in a hotel room, and it's important to remember that the film was based on a play. Normally, when such an adaptation is written, some of the verbiage is excised and action inserted, for the purpose of maintaining cinematic energy. In plays, the audience is relying on the actors to enliven a Static Stage, and they do so by reciting reams of dialogue. But in movies, the advantages are manifold - there are sets, and locations, and a moving camera, and a soundtrack including all kinds of music and effects to color and fill out the plotline. In short, there are other ways, besides endless dialogue, to move the story along.

So Holy Smokes, why did the director in this case make this film like a play?

Even the usually stalwart Edward G. Robinson cringes under the bombardment, and at one or two points onscreen, you can watch as he pauses, not in character but as an actor in the scene, as if to show that he's overwhelmed. I want to stress that none of this is Ginger Rogers' fault. The film was clearly a star vehicle for her, but the director didn't know when to pull back or cut away from her character......and after awhile you feel you are taking a beating. I myself was on the ropes by the 30 minute mark, and I struggled to finish the film. T'was only by herculean effort that I made it.

"Tight Spot" did become a true noir in the final twenty minutes, and there is a twist and a resulting payoff, but the going is pretty rugged in getting there. I was surprised to read the reviews afterwards and see how many fans enjoyed the movie - and you might also - but despite the razor sharp print and solid production values, and good acting, I'm afraid I can't recommend it because of the sheer effort it takes to sit through. I'm still gonna give it one and a half thumbs - held sideways - because of Ginger, but that's as good as I can do. Give it a try, though, you might like it better than I did.

But make sure and watch "Sailor of the King".

That's all for the moment. Have a great afternoon. Tons and tons of love!

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

"The First Legion" directed by Douglas Sirk, and "Identity Unknown" with Richard Arlen

How about a movie set in a seminary, in which most of the characters are Jesuit priests? The context was intriguing, not to mention something different from the Noirs and war films we've been watching, but what really drew me in was the name of the director : Douglas Sirk. You probably know him, but in case you don't, he specialized in melodramas that had a touch of mysticism about them, almost as if they were filmed through a gauze of wonder, or rapture. The characters in his films were always searching for meaning in the various plots in which they found themselves, and Sirk's velvety touch with the camera added to the spiritual effect. I thought I'd seen all of his major works, but tonight I discovered one I'd missed. It was called "The First Legion"(1951). The Jesuits are presented as an order apart from the greater Church. They are ultra-disciplined and even see themselves as militant. When the rigidity of Jesuit life proves too much for one Novice (Wesley Addy), he threatens to walk away, to go back to his old life as an aspiring pianist.

The head priest, known as the Father Rector (Leo G. Carroll), asks him to reconsider, but his mind is made up. Before he is set to leave, he goes upstairs to the room of his elderly mentor, Father Jose, who is bedridden with paralysis. Shortly thereafter, as Addy is saying goodbye to the rest of the Brothers, suddenly there appears on the staircase the figure of Father Jose. Though frail, he is walking down the steps, imploring Wesley Addy not to leave.

It's got to be a miracle. At least that's what the Father Rector believes. The local doctor who serves the seminary has no explanation for Father Jose's recovery, and Jose himself explains that he prayed to Blessed Joseph, the founder of their order, just before he stood up and walked. So, there can be no other answer - it's a miracle, and the papers in town trumpet it as such.

One skeptic, besides the doctor who doesn't believe in faith, is Father Arnoux (played by the great Charles Boyer). Arnoux is wary of declaring a miracle because the Jesuits, in their strict discipline, have always avoided such grand religious pronouncements without absolute proof, lest they be challenged for accuracy. Think of Father Karras in "The Exorcist", who tries to talk Mrs. McNeil out of an exorcism for her daughter Regan. He does this because, though he's a priest, he's also got one foot in the modern world, meaning that he believes in science. For an exorcism to happen, there needs to be evidence of possession, and likewise, science is evidence-based.

In "First Legion", now that the miracle has been declared, the worst case scenario has happened. It's exactly as Father Arnaux feared : every invalid in the region has descended upon the seminary, waiting at the gates in hope of their own miracle healings. This is dealt with in conversations between the true believers among the priests on one side, and Father Arnaux on the other. For his part, the doctor tries to stay out of it, though his disdain for religion and it's miracles is known to all involved.

In the movie's main subplot, there is a young woman, confined to a wheelchair, who lives in town nearby. She has a severed spine from a horse-riding accident and has been told by the doctor that she'll never walk again. But she too wants a miracle, and is determined to petition for one. Specifically, she wants access to the seminary, where she believes healing will occur.

That's all I will reveal about the story, except to say that a very large monkey wrench will be thrown into the works at some point. You'll know it when you see it. Besides Charles Boyer, and Leo G. Carroll, you also get William Demarest (cranky "Uncle Charlie" from My Three Sons) in a fine supporting role as the town's Catholic Monsignor, a friendly rival to the Jesuits who ribs them for their austerity.

The script is excellent and was based on a play, but the dramatization here is pure Douglas Sirk, with few exclamation points in the dialogue where quiet ponderings will suffice, instead. It's shot in black and white, and the print I saw was serviceable but not razor sharp nor in full grey scale. But don't let that stop you from watching "The First Legion", which was filmed at the Riverside Mission, a majestic setting for a wonderful story. I'd like to see a Criterion restoration, but I still give it Two Big Thumbs Up as is. Highly recommended!  /////

And now, if you can handle another war movie, we've got last night's "Identity Unknown"(1945), starring Richard Arlen as a WW2 vet suffering from amnesia. As the movie opens, he's aboard a hospital ship, where the head psychiatrist is trying to help him remember his name. All the doctors know is that he was found unconscious in a bombed-out barn in France, along with three other soldiers who were burned beyond recognition. There'd been a raid by the Luftwaffe; all of the men had their dog tags blown off in the attack and thus the Army doesn't know who was who. As the sole survivor, Arlen holds the key to the mystery. 

When their efforts prove unsuccessful, the doctors discharge Arlen after agreeing to let him try an experiment. He asks for - and is given - the names and addresses of the four soldiers whose names are on the dog tags. Surely he must be one of them. Knowing that three of the soldiers are dead, he receives permission to visit the residences of all four, expecting that at some point he will be recognized by a father, mother, brother or sister as part of the family.

This is a movie that I hate to criticise, because it's heart is in the right place with a message about healing the deep wounds of war. The trouble is, that for much of the first 45 minutes of it's 71 minute run, it comes off as gimmicky because of it's "process of elimination" plot structure. We know that, in taking the train cross-country to visit each of the four soldier's homes, that Arlen is going to find three of them deceased (which we're already aware of), and thereby discovering that he's the only one remaining. It's a variation on the Ten Little Indians format, or in this case the "Let's Make A Deal" arrangement, where you have to anticipate behind which "door" the answer will be found. The Arlen character eventually comes to be seen as a Heavenly Messenger who is healing the families of the deceased soldiers, and for that message the movie is commendable, even if it feels more like a TV drama than a fully fleshed out film. There is a romance that bookends the story, co-played by an actress named Cheryl Walker, who I feel the need to mention because of her 1940s sincerity. I looked her up on IMDB and found that she was Rose Queen of Pasadena in 1938.

Two Regular Thumbs, then, for "Identity Unknown", and Two Gigantic Thumbs, highest rating, for it's message of honoring - and never forgetting - fallen soldiers.  ////// 

See you in the morning. I'm reading the Paul McCartney bio and listening to early Beatles.

Tons and tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)

"Women In The Night" + "If I Were King", and A Word About Censorship

Once again I'm running a bit late, but here's last night blog :

This evening's film was called "Women in the Night"(1948), a suggestive title that represents more serious subject matter. Near the end of WW2, a group of Nazi officers are stationed in Shanghai in what is now Japanese held territory. Though Hitler is dead and Germany all but defeated, they still believe they can turn the tide with a Cosmic Death Ray that is being developed by one of their top scientists. To this end, they are offering to share the weapon with Japan, which has yet to surrender even though they've just suffered two atomic bombings at the hands of the United States. Japanese officials arrange to meet with the Nazis at the hotel that serves as their headquarters, in order to discuss the Death Ray.

As the meeting is being planned, the larger plot has already begun unfolding. The Nazis have brought several young women to the hotel, all of whom were previously arrested and destined for a Japanese concentration camp. The script doesn't go into why they are in China (they are all white Europeans and one American), but they are spared by the Nazi Colonel because he wants "companions" for himself and his fellow officers. The women suffer horrendous treatment at the hands of a female Nazi (their keeper), and their sexual slavery is hinted at but not shown outright because this was 1948. Still, it was strong stuff for it's time.

However, there is a major twist in the works, because we later find out that some of the captive women are spies, working for the Allies to uncover the secret of the Cosmic Death Ray (and as an aside, historical legend has it that Hitler may indeed have had his scientists working on all sorts of futuristic weapons at the end of the Third Reich). And of course, now we do have Death Rays and other apocalyptic toys...(yikes).

"Women" is a low budget film that takes place in one location, the hotel, and the most famous actors involved are Virginia Christine, who later became known as "Mrs. Olson" from the Folger's Coffee commercials, Jean Brooks from "The 7th Victim" (a classic of B-Horror), and Philip Ahn, who owned the Phil Ahn's Moongate restaurant next to the Americana Theater in Panorama City, and who was in a trillion movies himself. The German and Japanese officers are played as snarling caricatures, and in some cases the acting is stiff as a board, but hey - that's what you want in a picture like this, and I doubt they were much different in real life. The espionage plot involving the women is interesting and well written, and includes the subtheme of collaboration. One of the females is a Frenchwoman, whose country was overrun by the Germans. When she volunteers to be the consort of the Nazi Colonel, she is thereafter hated by the other women, but unlike them, she is not a professional spy. They don't understand her plight or what she's been through.

Overall, "Women in the Night" is quite good for what seems to be a Poverty Row flick. In it's script and acting it's way above average for such a production. It does go on a bit long at 92 minutes, and could stand a trim of ten to fifteen, but it will certainly hold your attention if you like the genre. Therefore I'm gonna give it Two Solid Thumbs Up, despite it's production values. There is a plea, written into the credit scroll at the beginning of the film, that sexual abuse of women during war should be prosecuted as a war crime, and the perpetrators given capital punishment. Then at the end of the film, there is a brief reiteration of the plea, which is really a demand. Many Nazis were sentenced to death during the Nuremberg Trials, but maybe crimes against women were not prosecuted, I don't know. In any case, this film stands up against it, in a powerful way. ////

Last night I watched a movie called "If I Were King"(1938), starring early actor Ronald Colman as a 15th century French poet and rebel named Francois Villon who, in a twist of fate, becomes the Chief Constable to King Louis XI. Before I begin my review, I have to ask : "What do we call the genre that includes films of the Middle Ages"? You know the kind I am talking about, movies with castles and knights, kings and queens, peasants and noblemen, swordfights and jousting......

Such movies could include everything from the original "Robin Hood" with Errol Flynn, to Robert Taylor in "Knights of the Round Table" (a prime example) and "Ivanhoe". I ask because there have been a lot of movies made with this criteria, but I've never heard of a name given to the style. I mean, you have "Westerns", "Noirs", "War Movies", "Screwball Comedies", but the closest thing to a genre name for Middle Ages movies has been "Sword and Sorcery", which is sorely lacking as a definitive title. 

At any rate, the film was based on a play and adapted by Preston Sturges, whose social justice themes are of prime importance to the plot. Villon is like a Robin Hood, breaking into King Louis' food storage barns to steal the contents, which he then distributes to the poor. Eventually he is rounded up by the royal guardsmen and taken to the castle to be sentenced. But instead of delivering him to the guillotine, Louis names him the new Chief Constable. This is brought on because Paris is being targeted for invasion by the Duke of Burgundy, and despite his overall scorn for Villon, Louis admires his skill as a strategist. Therefore he gives Villon one week to come up with a plan to defeat the Duke. If he can do so, he will remain Chief Constable; if he fails it's off with his head.

I have to cut in to mention the character of King Louis. He's played as a sniveling conniver, but not without heart. He's part curmudgeon and part merry trickster, but the main thing about him is that you'll never guess who's playing him. I must've missed the opening credits, but since you'll no doubt be looking for them I'm just gonna go ahead and tell you : it's Basil Rathbone in a simply wonderful performance, the polar opposite of what we've come to expect from him as the dignified Sherlock Holmes. I mentioned that the script was written by the great Preston Sturges, also a director whose screwball comedies we have seen and loved in the past. Though I wouldn't call this film a comedy, there is a light touch about the story and in some of the characters that is best displayed by Rathbone's King Louis XI. He's fantastic here, playing against the dashing Colman, and you see that he was a very versatile actor. There is a love interest for Colman (of whom we must look for more films), as well as all the pageantry and derring-do one would expect for a film from the "Middle Ages" genre, which I guess we will call it until you or I come up with a proper title.

So there you have it : one WW2 spy movie, low budget but well done and with unusual subject matter, and one Middle Ages Movie that's a Ton of Fun and should be considered with the best films of that genre. In that regard, Ronald Colman reminds one of an English Errol Flynn, whom he actually predates, careerwise.

That's all for today, except for one final word about censorship :

I am disappointed to see that the Dr. Suess estate has decided to pull from publication the classic children's story "And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street". Just so you know, I could go on a major tirade about the truly nutty Cancel Culture of the current era, whose policepersons have recently caused toymaker Hasbro to delete the word "Mister" from "Mr. Potatohead". I mean, what kind of kook do you have to be to get offended by that? 

It wasn't just Trump and the right wing psychos that we needed to worry about, because as you can see, there are just as many crazies on the Left. And if we don't call them out, too, and stand up to them, we are eventually gonna lose our freedom of speech, because they are insistent on homogenizing everything down to a bland, colorless mush, just to make sure no one's feelings are hurt.

And hey, what's so bad about that, right? But the fucking thing is, read Mulberry Street for yourself  and tell me what's offensive. A chinese man, eating with sticks? Even if you argue that it's now looked at as a hurtful caricature (which is fair enough and I won't argue back even though I disagree), then what what about the rajah in the same book?........or the depiction of the police? Aren't they unfairly portrayed as well?

Or is "Mulberry Street" really just a wonderful children's book through which so many kids of all colors and races have learned to read? I was one of them, and if Dr. Suess was a racist then I'm a Monkey's Uncle. And that's really the punch line here : if there are "racist images" in Mulberry Street and the other five books, then that means that Theodore Geisel - Dr. Suess himself - was a racist. I mean, does it not? And if he was a racist who deliberately drew racist images in his books, then shouldn't we ban all of them? I mean, he's either a bad man or he's not. Well anyway, feel free to flame me if you wish, but in my opinion the Cancel Culture nutjobs are as dangerous as the Trumpians. Both groups are extremists whose causes need to be stamped out. And before you lump me in with racists - real racists, mind you, not Dr. Suess - you should know that I am a product of Prairie Street Elementary School, which I attended in the late 1960s. It was one of the first schools to integrate, etc etc, and we were taught cultural and ethnic acceptance from a young age, but in a gentle way, not as reactionary enforcement. And from kindergarten onwards, we just thought of ourselves as kids, regardless of race, creed or color.

Banning books is what the Nazis did, just so you know. I wasn't gonna write about these people, because I hate politics, but I find them very dangerous, and with Mr. Potatohead and Dr. Suess, they've gone too far.

But they will be shut down, just as Trump was, because like him, they are also insane. ////

End of tirade. Tons of love. Have a beautiful day.   xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):) 

Two War Flicks: One Korean, One German - Both Good

Tonight, a Korean War film called "Hold Back the Night"(1956), starring John Payne as a Marine Captain leading a company of troops in retreat through Bronson Canyon. We haven't done much Korea, but this was a solid little movie, a minor gem even. The generic title gives no indication of the action involved. Payne's company is vastly outnumbered by Red Chinese forces and becomes trapped when a tank blocks their way. There is an argument between Payne and his Lieutenant (Peter Graves) about how to proceed. The Marines have suffered a number of casualties, and Graves suggests hiding or even ditching the wounded, so that the survivors can escape over a Santa Monica mountain pass. But John Payne is dead set against this. After all, the Marine Corps motto is "Semper Fi", they are known for never leaving a soldier behind. But to stay with the wounded in Bronson Cave will mean almost certain death for everyone.

There is also a Bottle of Scotch involved, and in fact it probably deserved a screen credit, because it makes regular appearances and serves as a storytelling device throughout the 80 minute film. It seems the scotch was given to Payne by his gal before he deployed, to be opened only for an Important Occasion. I will leave it to you to see if and when the bottle is finally opened, but it is integral enough to the story to be used in flashback sequences as well.

This does not mean a lack of war footage. To the contrary, legendary Hollywood director Alan Dwan, (perhaps the ultimate Hollywood Craftsman with an astounding 407 credits to his name, including some very famous movies) delivers some realistic looking battle scenes. The kind where, when a mortar hits a machine gun pit, you can see bodies flung up in the air amidst the black smoke. Yeah, it's gruesome but it shows the real thing, which was still unusual even in 1956 (and really up until "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon").

The Marines' fight for survival is the centerpiece of the film, but there are also somewhat unusual vignettes, told in flashback regarding the Bottle of Scotch, in which Payne has the opportunity to emote. In one such scene, he is in Melbourne, Australia on R&R, and he meets a young lady at a dance. They end up back at her apartment, and he's all ready to open the bottle. He tells the gal "she'd understand", meaning that his girl back home, the one who gave him the scotch, would understand that he's about to cheat on her, because he's 12,000 miles away on leave in a war. But then he is one-upped, because the Aussie lady replies, "Yes, I suppose my husband would understand as well". And her hubby is also a soldier, missing in action. So they're both about to cheat, but then they realise the magnitude of what they're doing and the bottle goes unopened. It's a weird little scene, because macho John Payne has to nearly break down, and he does this several times during the course of the film, as when he is arguing with the stoic and unemotional Peter Graves about the fate of the wounded men.

It's not a major war film due to it's short running time, lack of budget and it's focus on a singular theme (the escape). But director Dwan knows how to put it all together to create an affecting film, one in which the soldiers grow G.I. Joe beards during their ordeal and the prop department has scattered Bronson Canyon with snow (or something like it), to simulate the Korean highlands. Most of the dollars are spent on the very realistic looking explosions, mentioned earlier, and also the inclusion of a Marine rescue helicopter, which appears to be the real thing. Good performances all around, especially from John Payne and Peter Graves in their snow suits, and also from Chuck Conners in a supporting role.....and the Bottle of Scotch.

"Hold Back the Night" is highly recommended for fans of hard core war movies. It's short and to the point rather than long and involved, so even if you don't like war flicks per se, it'll still work for you as a drama. The print is not quite razor sharp, but close, so give it a look. It's a good one, and different.  ////

And now, for a Quickie Review of Last Night's Flick:

Last night I watched "Submarine Alert"(1943), a low-budget spy movie starring Richard Arlen as a German-American radio engineer who is co-opted into working for Nazi agents embedded in Los Angeles. As the movie opens, two of the Nazis are driving down Devonshire Street, en route to the home of an electronics genius who has invented a powerful transmitter. After killing the guy, they steal the transmitter and plan to use it to contact Japanese subs, in a scheme to sink U.S. oil tankers, without which the Americans will be unable to prosecute the war. But the transmitter breaks down after a single use. Now they need someone to fix it, so they call on Arlen, with a German Health Spa pioneer providing the front.

Yeah, it's a tad confusing.........especially that last, with the German health guy. It's actually inaccurate to say that he's involved in a health "spa". Really he believes in the health benefits of Certain Radio Frequencies, which come to think of it..........may not be all bad, considering that the Entire Universe is but a conglomeration of vibrations, some harmonious, some not.

It's pretty good for a cheapie, probably because it was made by a major studio (Paramount), and while it looks every bit like a B grade picture, the script covers a lot of ground in 66 minutes. The problem, for me anyway, was that I tuned in expecting a Submarine Movie, meaning one that takes place aboard a submarine. Sub films are a special subgenre for me, and every so often I find myself needing a Submarine Movie Fix. I went with "Submarine Alert" expecting to get one, but though it had plenty of espionage, none of it took place on a submarine. We never even saw the inside of a sub. Instead, the plot is about sending messages to subs, so that the Germans can sink American ships. One part that I didn't get, and am not sure was explained, was where the tankers were sailing from. It seems to me they'd be departing from the east coast to Europe. But if so, how did a Japanese sub get to the Atlantic Ocean? And if the tankers are sailing through the Pacific to aid in the fight against the Japanese, then what are the Nazis doing on the scene? After all, they were defeated in May 1945........ahh, the heck with it. This is a quickie review, and I give "Submarine Alert" Two Regular Thumbs Up, just because it moves quickly down Devonshire Street and doesn't disappoint, despite it's small budget.  ////

That's all I know and now I'm toast, super tired and ready for bed. Tonight I listened to Mahler's 8th Symphony. That is your next mission, to check out the symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner.

See you in the morning. Tons of love.  xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo  :):)