Sniff

Posted on August 1, 2007
Filed Under Blather, art, films | Leave a Comment

Michaelangelo Antonioni AND Ingmar Bergman both just died.

Scene from The Passenger
Scene from The Passenger (dir. Antonioni), one of my favorite films.

Another holiday treat from the bunnies

Posted on December 14, 2006
Filed Under Blather, art, christmas, films | Leave a Comment

A Christmas Story in 30 seconds, re-enacted by bunnies.

xmas story bunnies

Visualize flurries

Posted on December 13, 2006
Filed Under Blather, Pennsylvania, christmas, dining, films, friends, me and my brain, the telly | Leave a Comment

If you know me at all, then you know that for me this really IS the most wonderful time of the year. I’ve been busy with all sorts of
things, many of them holiday. Since the best part is sharing, it’s time to report.

Merry Christmas 2006

Saturday night we hosted our (usually) annual holiday party. This year we did a potluck, and I personally had a fabulous time. Thanks to all of our creative and talented friends, the food and drink were fantastic, as was the conversation. I made a fool of myself (think of it in the Shakespearian sense and maybe it’s not so bad) with the drink and babble, but it was totally worth it. It was great to see some friends who we don’t get a chance to see very often, too. As we do every year, we’ll try to be better this coming year about keeping up with our friends. I think we’ve made some progress this year! If you’re reading this, you’re probably on our “to see” list! We ended up with a lot of leftovers. If you want some sweets, I’ve got them!

Last weekend Ezra and I joined the crowd at The Brattle for the annual showing of It’s a Wonderful Life. Starbucks was paying for the matinee, so everyone got in free and the theater was indeed packed. I wasn’t sure a packed theater was ideal, I have to admit, since past experience tells me that sometimes big crowds at The Brattle are noisy and just make fun of the film. (Sometimes that makes sense, but often it’s annoying.) I had nothing to worry about, though. It was a great, enthusiastic crowd. They laughed heartily at appropriate points throughout the first half or so and fell silent as the film became a bit more serious. Everyone clapped loudly at the end (at this particular viewing I felt especially like clapping and cheering myself), and I noticed lots of teary eyes when the lights came up.IAWL

Pretty much every time I see the film, I notice something new or think about it in a little bit of a new way. Something always strikes me. This time I noticed when one of the bullets the cop aims at George shoots out the S in the Pottersville sign (Ezra had mentioned that to me last year). It also occured to me, and I can’t believe I didn’t think of this before, that George and Mary name their first child after George’s father, Peter Bailey. In a more general way, I was struck this time by how much the film is about selflessness and its rewards. Of course, throughout the film George gives of himself and makes sacrifices for other people. What I hadn’t thought about so much before is that when he asks Clarence to give him his life back at the end, he is again being selfless. By affirming his life, he assures that his family, friends, and the town will still benefit from his gifts. I always used to think that It’s a Wonderful Life was not really strictly a Christmas movie. Yes, the climactic moments happen on Christmas Eve, but it’s about so much more than that. I think though, that I realized with this viewing that it is a perfect Christmas movie, because Christmas to me is about all of the things George does and all of the things he learns. It’s about giving of yourself. The more religious among you might use that as a metaphor. For me, it all goes back to two statements in the film that are shown but never spoken–Clarence’s inscription to George in the copy of Tom Sawyer he gives him, “No Man Is a Failure Who Has Friends,” and the framed statement under Peter Bailey’s portrait at the Building and Loan that says, “You Can Only Take with You That Which You Have Given Away.” Have a tissue.

I’ve watched many of the other holiday movies and shows that I make a point to see every year, though I’m quite frustrated that I missed Rudolph. Sigh… I have watched Miracle on 34th Street, White Christmas, ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas, Charlie Brown, and the Grinch, along with It’s a Wonderful Life. A Christmas Story and The Bishop’s Wife are still on the to-view list.

Ezra has declared our living room Santa’s workshop. We have the tree in there this year, and I’ve got a gift wrapping station set up. It’s a bit of a… er… work in progress, shall we say. Messy, but festive.

As you likely know, the weather is not cooperating. What is this rain and 50 degrees crap? It’s got exactly 11 days to get its shit together. Accuweather, the darlings, are at least predicting that it won’t get out of the 30s on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in State College. Yes, I am checking daily.

The Last Picture Show

Posted on March 5, 2006
Filed Under Blather, family, films, the telly, the written word | 1 Comment

I find Roger Ebert’s movie reviews consistently not quite on target. He tries to get at the art of a film, but his comments still seem surface-y to me. OK, I don’t read his reviews very often, so maybe that’s not fair. Here’s my case in point. Last night Ez and I watched The Last Picture Show. We’d Tivo’d it off of TCM. I can sing the praises of TCM again here. They can air it, uncut and in all its original complexity, late at night when most young kids won’t be up. And let’s face it, most young kids are not going to get through the first ten minutes of this nuanced black and white film anyway. So… I had tried to watch this film once or twice before many years ago. I think I had some idea in my head that I would watch it because I liked Cybill Shepherd from Moonlighting. I didn’t get past the first few minutes. Her performance is good, but there’s so much more going on in the film, and so many other great performances, it would be a shame to focus on her and miss or discount all the rest.

I really loved it. Most of the reviews I’ve seen focus on how it’s a story about a dying town. They debate whether it’s nostalgic or anti-nostalgic. They talk about how it fits into film history and how it shows Orson Welles’ and Howard Hawks’ influence. Those are all interesting and important parts of the film, but for me the best part are the shockingly great performances–and so many of them. The connection between Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Ruth (Cloris Leachman) works so well, and is so heartbreaking right from the start. They are both fantastic, and the end is just perfect for the film. I knew I wanted an ending something like that as I watched the film, and the way it’s done is just right.

So… After seeing the movie I poked around online and read some reviews. Ebert supplied this one , which is OK, but never seems to get to the heart of things, and this one, which is much better, but still not entirely satisfying (to me). I hate how he flatly states that one scene is “the best.” The scene he’s talking about is a great scene, and it’s very important to the film as a whole, but there are lots of other “best” scenes. It seems wrong to splice up the movie that way. I guess I like this review, from Neil Young (odd little coincidence, I guess!), because it finally gives lead actor Timothy Bottoms his due. Why don’t people rave about his performance? So many of the other actors in the film were nominated for and even won Oscars, and there seems to be lots of talk about how great they were and how this was their breakout film, but he is rarely mentioned. I thought he gave possibly the best performance in the whole film (along with Cloris Leachman, who is just devastating). I like that the reviewer juxtaposes the film against American Graffiti. I made a similar mental comparison. And I guess I also like this review because he talks about the last scene. I love the acting in this scene. I love how the emotions come across more from their movements and their faces and their hands than from words. Sonny and Ruth have this deep sadness, and they “get” that sadness maybe more than any other characters in the film. That the town is dying is interesting. Where it fits in American cultural history is interesting. But what’s much more interesting to me is what’s happening inside all of these people in that town.

A couple of films I have watched in the past few days

Posted on February 10, 2006
Filed Under films | 4 Comments

Mr. Skeffington–Though not as great as Now, Voyager, this is another pretty good Bette Davis film. She plays a beautiful socialite who clings to superficial ideas of love and beauty until an illness forces her to re-examine her values and take a less selfish view of life.

skeffington

Yeah, personally, I think she looks a little ridiculous in the film’s early scenes, but it’s supposed to be the late 1800’s, so…

Once again, Claude Rains co-stars. I think I love him. I almost posted just about him the other day. He was in loads of great films, including Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; Now, Voyager; Mr. Skeffington; Casablanca; Notorious; and Lawrence of Arabia. Not bad.

Lawrence of Arabia–I can’t say enough about how great this movie is. I think it’s one of those films that people hear about all the time, but it seems like many people today haven’t actually seen it. This may be partly because of its length. I have to thank Ezra for talking me into going to see it at the Brattle several summers ago. It’s hard to describe how absolutely fantastic and awe-inspiring this film is on the big screen. The desert scenes are just amazing. Today’s adventure films, however technically fancy and ambitious they might be, rarely come even close to being as magnificent (not a word I use lightly). It was the last film to be shot on 70mm film, rather than shot on 35mm and then enlarged, so the visual detail is stunning.

Lawrence of Arabia

Anyway, Lawrence of Arabia is much more than an adventure film. It sounds silly to even try to explain it. The film won 7 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score–all well deserved. Peter O’Toole lost the Best Actor award to Gregory Peck (To Kill a Mockingbird). I’m a bit shocked that Omar Sharif didn’t win Best Supporting Actor. The cast is incredible–O’Toole, Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Alec Guinness… And this was one of O’Toole’s first films, and Omar Sharif’s first English film. There’s only a single woman in the whole film–a nurse who just flashes through one scene and is uncredited–an interesting content point in itself. The internet tells me that the real T.E. Lawrence was indeed gay.

O'Toole and Sharif

Anyway, if you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend setting aside time some weekend to watch the whole thing, start to finish. If you ever get the opportunity to see it in the theater, go! You won’t be disappointed.

Performances

Posted on January 28, 2006
Filed Under Blather, art, films, music, photography | 2 Comments

I’ve been fairly busy with work this week, so it’s nice that I’ve twice been able to get out and take in a dose of something you might call art.

On Tuesday, my friend John came down from Portland and he, Ez, and I all went to see Deerhoof at the Middle East. The opening acts were a mixed bag–to put it kindly. First up was L’Ocelle Mare. Honestly, I didn’t think he was so bad. He basically did these sort of spastic little one-man jams on an electrified acoustic guitar, clomping his feet down on some boards and using various other little musical devices here and there (bells, rattles, a harmonica, etc.). It was sort of abstract–not really your typical music. I can’t say that I loved it, but he was charming–kept grinning and nodding sheepishly at the end of each piece–and it wasn’t horrible.

I’m a little mixed up on the order of things, but I think next up was the evening’s first selection of films by Martha Colburn. Like the opening acts as a whole, these were a mixed bag. I kind of liked the brightness and brash colorfulness of them, and some of the images were fun. I feel like the second batch of films, which came later, was less impressive because it seemed to be harping over and over on the same somewhat meaningless sexual imagery. I was surrounded by a bunch of guffawing college guys, and they all really liked the sex films, if that tells you anything.

hypnotism

The second musical act was Le Ton Mite. I found him tiring and a bit embarrassing. I don’t know… his schtick (as Ezra would say) just didn’t work for me.

After another round of films, we were all told that we had to step back and clear a space of about 1/4 of the entire floor, as this would be the “stage” for the Leg & Pants Dans Theeatre performance. This was really annoying and awkward, and it underscores my main problem with their part of the show–it just would have worked much better in a different space and setting. Half of the audience really wasn’t interested, and forcing the audience to crush together and then sit down on top of each other on a dirty, nasty floor didn’t exactly draw us in.

leaving behind

But putting all of that aside… there were some things about their performance that I really liked. They used slides, and that might have worked well if they’d had someone other than one of the dancers actually advancing the slides and if the slides had been projected larger–maybe on a bigger screen. The speaking part that went along with their dance was a bit silly. Maybe if they hadn’t been preceded by Le Ton Mite I would have taken that aspect of their performance more seriously. Visually, I liked a good bit of what they did. I had fun taking photos of their performance. It would have been even more fun to photograph if I hadn’t been jammed in on the floor with my knees on random guys’ elbows and such.

Standing

Then, finally, Deerhoof played. By then, Ezra had succumb to his illness and had to go home. It’s a shame, because beyond the experience/spectacle aspect of the opening acts, Ezra really missed what was–by about a mile–the most worthwhile portion of the night. Deerhoof were quite good–and very loud. They played a lot of songs from their latest record. Their music is a little hard to describe, but I guess I’d say it’s experimental, arty, and noisy. Sometimes I hear jazz and funk in their music, and halfway through their set last night, I thought of My Bloody Valentine. I guess I wasn’t far off, because for their encore they did a cover of one of my favorite My Bloody Valentine songs, “Lose My Breath.” (I overheard one of their guitarists telling someone after the show that it was the first time they’d played that song live.) My vantage point and the lighting weren’t conducive to great picture-taking, but of course I snapped away regardless.

Deerhoof in light

Then, last night, Ez and I saw Sartre’s No Exit at the ART (American Repertory Theatre). Though it’s a very famous play, and though the basic gist is apparent from its title, it was new to me because I’d never seen nor read it. The cast was phenomenal–we’ve seen each of the four actors in other ART productions and they’re all very good. Karen MacDonald, who plays Estelle, is one of my personal favorites. She was fantastic as Simonne Evrard in Marat/Sade (which, by the way, was mind-blowingly great and one of the best theatrical performances I’ve ever seen). Paula Plum is great as Inez. I’d seen her in Lysistrata, and maybe something else, too, but I don’t feel like I really saw her in a great role until last night.

I suppose the big and obvious “wow” about this performance that knocks people out right off is the staging. The audience sits in a U-shape around the elevated square stage. The stage is on some kind of central pivot, and it literally rises and falls with the weight of the actors as they move across it. This makes for some very striking stuff. As Ezra said, if cameras were allowed, you would be seeing loads of pictures (the photo above is from the ART site). I found the set very surrealist–the stage suspended in space, with lighting that literally made it appear as though it existed more or less in nothing, a classical sculpture in one corner, a tall door leading to nowhere, no walls. It’s a sparse scene with a few brightly colored objects thrown in.

This Boston Globe article says a few interesting things about this version and the play itself. Really, we’re lucky to have the ART here.

The Passenger

Posted on January 16, 2006
Filed Under Blather, films | 2 Comments

Last night Ezra and I went to the 9:30 showing of The Passenger at The Brattle.

In this 1975 film, Jack Nicholson plays David Locke, a British-born American-raised reporter working on a documentary somewhere in Africa. When a man who bears a striking resemblance to Locke dies in the room next to him at his hotel, he decides to switch identities with him. His wife and employers back in London think he’s dead, and he discovers that the man whose identity he has taken is a gun runner for a secret organization.

the passenger

The film begins in Africa, moves to London, and then is set largely in and around Barcelona (swoon!). In Barcelona, Locke meets a young tourist who is intrigued by his situation. She joins up with him and they travel together, trying to elude pursuers from both his old identity (his wife, his former employer) and his new one (arms traffickers).

Michaelangelo Antonioni (Blowup, L’Avventura) directed. There’s a lot in the film about seeing, being seen, and how one sees the world and his or her self. In spots, it jumps around in time, but just as the film doesn’t provide a manipulative orchestral soundtrack, the jumps back and forth in time happen without a lot of fanfare. It’s all just a part of the picture being presented to the viewer, and the viewer is entrusted with making up his or her own mind about what’s going on and what it all means. The filming itself is also artful and clever–some long shots and panning shots seem almost impossible, and some shots are beautifully framed (the very last shot comes to mind, along with a wedding shot earlier in the film).

This was a discovery for me, and I was totally affected by it. It was time well spent. I recommend it.

Our latest sensations old movie-wise

Posted on January 14, 2006
Filed Under Blather, films, the telly | 1 Comment

If we were watching a lot of old movies before, the Tivo we got for Christmas is enabling us to watch even more.

I think in the past when I heard too much about a particular iconic film, I tended to discredit it in my mind. I guess it became cliched for me. I’m learning to get past that (lesson #1), as I’ve seen some really great films lately that I ignored in the past.

Two such films are Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and The Hustler–both Paul Newman films, now that I mention it. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is over the top, but it’s supposed to be. It’s Tennessee Williams, and I tend to really like Tennessee Williams. Some of the characters annoy me, and some of the performances annoy me, too. But I think they’re supposed to annoy me. Part of the fascination for me has to be that I saw this film for the first time in December, and I couldn’t get over the fact that it stars Burl Ives–and he’s really pretty darn good. I didn’t know that Burl Ives was in films. I’m a fool, of course, because he was in lots, including other adaptations of dramatic literature (Desire Under the Elms, East of Eden). So that’s lesson #2.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

The first time I really saw a significant chunk of The Hustler, I tuned in when Eddie (Newman) has already hooked up with Sarah (Piper Laurie). I think my ignorant view of this film had been negatively impacted by the fact that its 1986 sequel stars Tom Cruise and has a 1986 soundtrack (Don Henley, Robert Palmer, Phil Collins, Mark Knopfler–you get the idea). I didn’t realize that Piper Laurie was even in the movie–didn’t know about that part of the movie, or about George C. Scott’s role. Well… duh. For me, that right there is the best part of the film. It’s another sort of over-the-top one, but I kind of love it. Laurie and Scott are both great in it, and it has tons of atmosphere. Doesn’t hurt in my book that it’s 1961, either (got to admit the positive biases along with the negative ones). I think Ezra, being a Twin Peaks fan, got a kick out of seeing Piper Laurie in it, too. Needless to say, I’ve now seen the whole film from beginning to end. It’s quite dark, and not in the silly way that I thought it might be. To me, the fact that Eddie plays pool is really not the point. The emotional stuff, the stuff about self-worth and self-loathing (and more)… that’s all more interesting to me.

I’d never seen a Bette Davis film before, either–really! That was another case of something too-over-hyped, and I’d never seen the proof that she was this great actress “everyone” said she was. Well, I’ve seen three films over the last several months that have changed my mind about Bette Davis.

The first I saw was The Petrified Forest, a 1936 film starring Davis, Leslie Howard, and Humphrey Bogart and based on a Robert E. Sherwood play. I think I’d always seen pictures of Bette Davis in All About Eve–a later picture–so it was new for me to see her in a role where she was supposed to be very young and beautiful. Davis, Howard, and Bogart are all quite good, as is much of the supporting cast.

Next I saw June Bride. I’m not sure what made me Tivo this one, but I’m glad I did. It’s one of her few comedies–a light and witty 1948 romance with Robert Montgomery (another discovery–thanks TCM!). In it, Davis plays a smart, independent women’s magazine editor. Montgomery, a writer and an old flame, is assigned to work with her on the magazine when opportunities for him as a foreign correspondent dry up after the war. They take their crew out to Indiana to cover a charming June wedding–in February. It’s fluff, but it’s good fluff, and their banter is pretty great (I hear they weren’t too palsy off-screen). My only gripe–the ending could have been handled differently. Though it wasn’t unexpected, it was still a disappointment. Supporting actress Mary Wickes (she played Emma in White Christmas and has lots of other films and TV roles to her credit) shows up in this one, too.

In fact, she’s also in the other Bette Davis film I just saw–the best of the bunch–Now, Voyager. It’s quite melodramatic and there are so many heart-breaking goodbyes–between the same two people!–that as a viewer you sometimes feel emotionally tormented along with them. But, you suppress cynicism (at least I did) with no trouble and you’re rewarded for it. Ez and I turned this one on at 11:00 one night. I thought we’d just have a peek and watch the rest some other night. Ha ha–fat chance. There was no convenient place to stop, and I didn’t want to. It sucked me in! Bette Davis plays Charlotte Vale, an unmarried woman in a distinguished Boston family, a late daughter of an awful, controlling mother (played with loads of venom by Gladys Cooper) who keeps her from having any sort of a life. Charlotte spends a few months in a sanitarium under the care of Dr. Jaquith (Claude Rains) who helps her become her own person. She then goes on a cruise and slips into a wonderful romance with the married Jerry Durrance (played fantastically by another Casablanca alum, Paul Henreid*). When she returns to her family after the cruise a new person, their shock and her reaction are delicious.

now, voyager

But the movie doesn’t stop there. Charlotte and Jerry cross paths again and again. Anyway, if you haven’t seen it, I can’t give it all away (though it’s one of those movies that a lot of people probably know about even without having seen it). It’s clearly taken from a novel (I’d love to read it), and a lot happens. There are some great smoking scenes. That’s another thing I’ve discovered–Bette Davis was one hell of a smoker. She smokes like a chimney in June Bride and she and Henreid share some rather intimate cigarettes in Now, Voyager. Anyway, go see that one.

*OK–technically Now, Voyager was released in the US about a month before Casablanca.

The Misfits

Posted on November 1, 2005
Filed Under Blather, films | Leave a Comment

I’m watching the Misfits on Turner Classic Movies and it’s a bit of a revelation. I always liked Marilyn Monroe, but often felt like I wasn’t seeing her really acting–wasn’t seeing her talents being used. I don’t know if it was her fault, or the fault of people she was working with, but something just wasn’t right. (Some Like It Hot is an obvious exception–it’s a pretty stereotypical Marilyn role, but it’s well written and directed and she’s great in it.) In some ways, she’s much more beautiful in the Misfits, though. Her frailty is revealed–she’s a real person. Her role has complexity, and however much of the expressions on her face are acting and however much is how she was really feeling during the filming… it works. It’s nice to see her in something so real… It’s gritty and anxious. Supposedly she was very self-conscious about how she looked at the time of the filming. It knocks me out, because I think she’s probably at her most beautiful. I guess frailty is beautiful to me.

In a book I’m reading, there’s a quote that anyone can act, as long as they’re just being themselves. If this is Marilyn not-acting acting, well… I wish she’d been not-acting more often.

Arthur Miller wrote the screenplay. Maybe this shows some of the Marilyn he knew.

Thelma Ritter is great, as always, as Isabelle Steers. Just saw her in Rear Window the other night. I always think of her in Miracle on 34th Street saying, “I’ve never been much of a Macy customer.”

A Little Brattle Update

Posted on October 20, 2005
Filed Under Blather, films | 1 Comment

Last night we saw Queen Christina at the Brattle. It was wonderful! Garbo’s acting is very fine… very subtle for your average MGM blockbuster in 1933. John Gilbert is not generally considered to a be a particularly great actor, and there are a few spots where the obvious gap between her talent and his is beyond glaring, but he’s not terrible. The supporting cast does a great job–in my opinion they make some of the scenes. I won’t give too much of the plot away, but in some of the scenes at the end, as you’re a viewer on the precipice, about to bust out crying, the supporting cast nudges you over the edge.

I am so annoyed at myself for not getting my butt down to the Brattle to see more of the Garbo centennial screenings. It makes such a huge difference to see them in a theater, on a big screen, with minimal distraction. Encore!!! Encore!!! And shame on me.

An anonymous donor matched donations to the Brattle Film Foundation dollar for dollar at last night’s 7:30 screening. It seemed like people were pitching in. They’ll be doing benefit screenings on Thursday nights throughout November and December. The schedule isn’t posted yet to my knowledge, but they’re promising Brattle favorites. Tickets for those shows will be $15–well worth it to see a great film and help keep the Brattle afloat.

« go back — keep looking »

Song of the Day

Japandroids-The House That Heaven Built 

Photos

My Photos on Flickr


Links


Recently


Categories


Archives