Reading all the reviews here and am amazed at how no one recognizes this series now for it was when it premiered back in 1967: a show that took the premise of "The Sound of Music" and elevated into the world of wacky TV sitcoms. Yes - nuns were really popular back then, not just because of "The Sound of Music" but also because of the movie "The Trouble With Angels", where lively teenager Hayley Mills ends up enrolling in the sisterhood (again, perhaps not coincidentally, in one "Nun" episode, Sister Bertrille shows home movies of her former life as a lively teenager - cue clips from Sally's "Gidget" days!). Heck - even Elvis and Mary Tyler Moore jumped on the nun bandwagon with "Change of Habit"! But back to the TV show and its similarity to "The Sound of Music": Sister Bertrille is the upstart nun who solves difficult social problems, many of them involving children, and very often accompanied by her (dubbed) vocalizing. I wonder what Richard Rodgers and Maria Von Trapp thought of all that??? As for the TV show's merits when compared to other shows of its generation, it's every bit as fanciful as "I Dream of Jeannie", "Bewitched" and "Nanny and the Professor" (a ripoff of "Mary Poppins" - amazing how Julie Andrews inspired TWO TV sitcoms!) - and certainly not as far out as "My Mother The Car"! I can certainly understand Sally Field's dislike of the material: can you imagine hoping to be a "serious" actress and being given scripts for a show that seemed like it would be an outright flop? But - with a great cast of actors (ohhh - that HOT Alejandro Rey on his yacht in that speedo!), the show is still fun to watch - and a reminder of what American families thought of as "wholesome entertainment" back in the waning days of Cold War/Vietnam War era.
Reviews
40 Reviews
I Am Michael
(2015)
"Based on a true story"...
8 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
A lot of reviewers are confused or even outraged by this movie. Well, guess what? That's because you only got HALF the story. I remember Michael and his boyfriend (in real life named "Benji") and their polyamrous relationship with a third young gay man ("Scott" in real life). In fact, I saw them all speak in NYC at a bookstore when they were promoting "Jim in Bold" (a documentary that spotlighted a young gay man's suicide juxtaposed with footage of Michael and company touring the USA and speaking with gay teens in rural/conservative areas). They were all "Rah-rah-rah GAY and Michael was especially honest about his own homophobia growing up. It was also obvious that they were sexually active - and, in fact, when I spoke with Scott afterward, he gave me his phone number.... Well, after awhile they fell off the radar and I never knew what happened to them...UNTIL I googled "Young Gay America" and found that Michael had gone str8. In interviews he diligently avowed his "straight" awakening and relationship with God. And that's what you get from this movie. What is not at all discussed or even hinted at is what actually caused this catharsis: Benji seroconverted as a result of their cross-country tourings. Whether Michael has HIV or not has never been revealed - only that Michael turned to God when faced with such close encounter with HIV. In that regard, he reminds me of any drug addict who almost fatally ODs but then, upon awakening and finding themselves alive, they make a promise to God to repent and promote salvation to the Lord. Now do you get the movie?
The Boys in the Band
(2020)
Nice actors, no chemistry
2 October 2020
I really looked forward to watching this so-named "remake". Kudos for the production team trying to re-capture the pre-Stonewall atmosphere of the play. Unfortunately, the actors - and ultimately the director - are all victims of the current age where we gay men feel "comfortable" in our homosexual skins. There was not tension, no notion that the party as well as Michael's apartment was a space where the boys/"girls" could "let their hair down" due to oppressive mainstream attitudes about being gay. Furthermore, what was also lacking was - and I say this as a gay man who was in his prime during the 80s before the current LGBTQ "openness" was in full-swing - a sense of "competition", where gay men were always trying to "out-clever" one another with swipes at their identities. In this age of "Everyone needs to feel safe", gay men have abandoned - for better or worse - that self-deprecating attitude that united us back then. Yes - it's good that we don't embrace that attitude anymore - but it's deadly when you're trying to revive a gay play - in fact THE gay play - from the past/pre-Stonewall era.
It Chapter Two
(2019)
A LOT of effort but the parts don't add up to a whole
16 April 2020
I finally saw this movie after being sorry I missed it in the theaters last summer.
Well, I have to say the wait was worth it! I only paid $5.99 to see it on Google Play rather than a full movie theater ticket of $12.00!
The movie is full of special effects and gore - occasionally I got a good scare but more than anything else this film tired me out! After about an hour I was caught up more with all the composting of film, the trick shots, the editing, the set design, etc because all I could think of was "How did they come with that idea and how many people and hours did that shot require???" Shot after shot, sequence after sequence.
The main problem - without giving anything away - is that this "It" alien can distort time and space by affecting people's minds. So all kinds of things happen but then - guess what - they really didn't happen. Or maybe a few really did? After awhile I just gave up and chalked it up to the alien, then ultimately just chalked it up to the director and writer.
The secondary problem is that King's work usually entails personal dramas, histories and relationships between many of the characters. That may work well on the page but for a real killer-diller monster movie it just bogs everything down. In this film particularly - I guess because the producer and director wanted to be really faithful to the book - it's just one personal conflict after another. The "It" monster uses these personal facts to create horrors specific to the characters - but, again, in order for those moments of horror to happen, we have to sit through memories and recountings and confessions ad nauseum.
Every monster movie has a final confrontation with the rampaging beast and this movie is no exception. Unfortunately, in this movie, given all I've said, it's just more of the same only on a bigger scale.
Well, I have to say the wait was worth it! I only paid $5.99 to see it on Google Play rather than a full movie theater ticket of $12.00!
The movie is full of special effects and gore - occasionally I got a good scare but more than anything else this film tired me out! After about an hour I was caught up more with all the composting of film, the trick shots, the editing, the set design, etc because all I could think of was "How did they come with that idea and how many people and hours did that shot require???" Shot after shot, sequence after sequence.
The main problem - without giving anything away - is that this "It" alien can distort time and space by affecting people's minds. So all kinds of things happen but then - guess what - they really didn't happen. Or maybe a few really did? After awhile I just gave up and chalked it up to the alien, then ultimately just chalked it up to the director and writer.
The secondary problem is that King's work usually entails personal dramas, histories and relationships between many of the characters. That may work well on the page but for a real killer-diller monster movie it just bogs everything down. In this film particularly - I guess because the producer and director wanted to be really faithful to the book - it's just one personal conflict after another. The "It" monster uses these personal facts to create horrors specific to the characters - but, again, in order for those moments of horror to happen, we have to sit through memories and recountings and confessions ad nauseum.
Every monster movie has a final confrontation with the rampaging beast and this movie is no exception. Unfortunately, in this movie, given all I've said, it's just more of the same only on a bigger scale.
Death of A Cheerleader
(1994 TV Movie)
Ridiculous casting
19 May 2019
Every time watch this film, I collapse in laughter at the way Hollywood works. Tori Spelling as the "popular girl"??? She only got this part because of who her dad was back then. The part of the snobby, rich "popular girl" who everybody wants to kill would later be immortalized by Rachel Adams as "Regina" in "Mean Girls". But Tori is not Rachel Adams, she's not even Lacy Chabert (who played "Gretchen" in "Mean Girls"). If Tori had been more interested in exercising her acting chops, she would have played the Kellie Martin part to great effect: the homely girl who ends up a murderer because high school is filled with "mean girls". Yes the film is about bullying, yes it's a true story - but casting Tori Spelling as the person everyone envies turns this sincere endeavor into a piece of camp.
Magnum P.I.
(2018–2024)
Tom Selleck was a MALE MODEL
25 September 2018
Let's start there. Before any viewers had given the original show a chance, they all tuned in to see HOT Tom Selleck. Once they experienced the "flair" of the show and its title character, people fell IN LOVE.
Move on to the 2018 reboot: sorry - the new actor portraying Magnum is likable, "cute" and - in this age of mandatory television diversity - suitably "ethnic". (hey - I'm Latino as well, like Hernandez - but I also remember the original show all-too-well). Unless you have someone who just commands every scene (even when he's not doing anything just because he's sooooo HOT), the show is no different than any other crime dram-edy. My guess is that someone close to Les Moonves (perhaps Julie Chen herself?) pushed to have this actor and this reboot greenlighted. Now that the "Old Order" is out and the "New Order" has yet to be named, I can't imagine this lame imitation is going to be around for long. My prediction: it's the first CBS new show to be cancelled this season.
Move on to the 2018 reboot: sorry - the new actor portraying Magnum is likable, "cute" and - in this age of mandatory television diversity - suitably "ethnic". (hey - I'm Latino as well, like Hernandez - but I also remember the original show all-too-well). Unless you have someone who just commands every scene (even when he's not doing anything just because he's sooooo HOT), the show is no different than any other crime dram-edy. My guess is that someone close to Les Moonves (perhaps Julie Chen herself?) pushed to have this actor and this reboot greenlighted. Now that the "Old Order" is out and the "New Order" has yet to be named, I can't imagine this lame imitation is going to be around for long. My prediction: it's the first CBS new show to be cancelled this season.
Tomorrow, the World!
(1944)
Give the kid a break!
18 March 2013
This movie is nothing but WWII anti-Nazi propaganda. But it achieves what its producers wanted to achieve: inform the American people that the Nazi War Machine is thorough when it comes indoctrination.
It's all about a German boy refugee - Emil - who turns out to be a nasty Nazi to the bone. He comes up against his American relatives who offer to take him in and show him the benefits of life in the U.S.A.
The boy played by Skip Homeier is captivating in a "Bad Seed" way. How else would this kid go on to enjoy a long-lived movie and TV career playing @$$h0les??? I enjoyed the rest of the cast as well. Fredric March as a gruff uncle, Betty Field as his fiancé whose Jewishness causes the obvious problems when a Nazi moves in, Agnes Moorehead as March's sister who expresses prejudice against all Germans, and Joan Carroll as March's little sister who stands up for Emil but who ends up a victim of her own good heart.
There's also a German housekeeper who demonstrates how not all Germans who speak with thick accents are Nazis.
I know a lot of people today are shocked at this type of propaganda, but it really is no different - or better or worse - than what was being put out by every other studio in Hollywood. Check out Disney's animated "Education for Death" or Warner Brothers' "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" and STFU.
Ultimately, what sets TTW apart from other Hollywood-produced propaganda is that it was first a successful Broadway play prior to becoming a movie. New York theatergoers in the 1940s - many of them Jewish no doubt - found favor in this play. Expectations from performance pieces were obviously different back then.
It's all about a German boy refugee - Emil - who turns out to be a nasty Nazi to the bone. He comes up against his American relatives who offer to take him in and show him the benefits of life in the U.S.A.
The boy played by Skip Homeier is captivating in a "Bad Seed" way. How else would this kid go on to enjoy a long-lived movie and TV career playing @$$h0les??? I enjoyed the rest of the cast as well. Fredric March as a gruff uncle, Betty Field as his fiancé whose Jewishness causes the obvious problems when a Nazi moves in, Agnes Moorehead as March's sister who expresses prejudice against all Germans, and Joan Carroll as March's little sister who stands up for Emil but who ends up a victim of her own good heart.
There's also a German housekeeper who demonstrates how not all Germans who speak with thick accents are Nazis.
I know a lot of people today are shocked at this type of propaganda, but it really is no different - or better or worse - than what was being put out by every other studio in Hollywood. Check out Disney's animated "Education for Death" or Warner Brothers' "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" and STFU.
Ultimately, what sets TTW apart from other Hollywood-produced propaganda is that it was first a successful Broadway play prior to becoming a movie. New York theatergoers in the 1940s - many of them Jewish no doubt - found favor in this play. Expectations from performance pieces were obviously different back then.
Oz the Great and Powerful
(2013)
Great "Oz" movie! But maybe too "Ozzy" for today's audiences?
10 March 2013
Well - yes - this cannot compare to the 1939 movie. But NOTHING will ever come close to the 1939 movie.
That said, "Oz the Great and Powerful" is a very clever, well-made film that, in addition to pulling elements from both the original Oz books and the 1939 film, manages to come up with quite a few original and innovative story elements of its own regarding "pre-Dorothy" Oz - capable of holding its own against the novel/musical "Wicked." James Franco is great as "O.Z.": the character of the Wizard - while portrayed in the 1939 movie as a lovable "humbug" - is more of a snarky, flimflam in the Oz books, and that certainly comes across in this movie.
The China Doll is wonderful character inspired by a chapter in the original "Wizard" story that has never been realized in any previous Oz film: in that book, Dorothy and her trio stumble upon a land where everything is made of fine porcelain - or "china." (Obviously, with the expiration of the copyright of all of Baum's works, Disney had to come up with a character which is unique to "Oz the Great and Powerful" yet still maintains some sort of tie to Baum's Land of Oz.)
There are also numerous jabs/dares when it comes to the 1939 movie. There is a glamorous wicked witch - which pays homage to the initial casting of 1930s Hollywood beauty Gale Sondergaard in the role of the Wicked Witch. There is also a bevy of dialogue that sounds ripped from the soundtrack of the 1939 movie - until such dialogue is fully delivered and you realize the phrase was either a line from the book or simply can stand on its own despite being uttered in the 1939 film ("I'll get you my pretty..." and "You put the 'merry' in the 'merry old Land of Oz").
The witches - good and wicked - are all wonderfully portrayed, and the sets are certainly much more visually appealing than Disney's last Oz-go-round "Return To Oz" (1985).
The BIGGEST PROBLEM for many viewers boils down to the fact that the script remains extremely faithful to L. Frank Baum's vision of Oz: Baum's perspective is/was that of a writer in the early part of the 20th century. Consequently, there is strong "pacifist" aspect to this movie's portrayal of the Land of Oz and its people, which - without giving anything away - either may not sit well with contemporary viewers or else, perhaps more importantly, dilutes the potential for a "slam-bang" finish.
Additionally, in Baum's original "Wizard," the title character, whether in spite of or else because of his "humbug" background, was all about helping the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion to realize that the goals they sought - a brain, a heart and courage - were mere token symbols for qualities already evident in these three characters (the Scarecrow, for instance, constantly figured out ways to overcome adversity while fighting the Wicked Witch of the West - yet, at the same time, he was always bemoaned the fact that he did not have a brain; likewise, the Tin Man cried at one point because he stepped on a bug and felt that such a "cruel" act would never have happened if he had a heart in the first place). Well, that attitude - "It's what ya do what ya got" (what Disney film first promoted that same notion??? BONUS POINTS if you can name it!) - permeates this film over and over. Consequently, the finale of this film may not be "confrontational" enough for many viewers, who like their Good/Evil battles to have more head-to-head violence.
Ultimately, Baum's writing reflected the attitudes - and indeed maturity - of the collective American mindset of the early 20th century, when Americans were much more naive and innocent than today. (Seriously - the notion of a Fairyland whose inhabitants do not kill their enemies in order to survive was only possible in the years prior to WWI!) As such, "Oz the Great and Powerful," may seem too "juvenile" and move too slow for contemporary viewers conditioned to the sagas of "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter."
On that note, it's probably wise to remember that the Oz books were the "Harry Potter" books of their time - albeit their longevity record outdoes Harry by a long-shot: over a hundred years.
My advice: Don't expect "Harry," DO expect BAUM and you'll be fine with this movie.
That said, "Oz the Great and Powerful" is a very clever, well-made film that, in addition to pulling elements from both the original Oz books and the 1939 film, manages to come up with quite a few original and innovative story elements of its own regarding "pre-Dorothy" Oz - capable of holding its own against the novel/musical "Wicked." James Franco is great as "O.Z.": the character of the Wizard - while portrayed in the 1939 movie as a lovable "humbug" - is more of a snarky, flimflam in the Oz books, and that certainly comes across in this movie.
The China Doll is wonderful character inspired by a chapter in the original "Wizard" story that has never been realized in any previous Oz film: in that book, Dorothy and her trio stumble upon a land where everything is made of fine porcelain - or "china." (Obviously, with the expiration of the copyright of all of Baum's works, Disney had to come up with a character which is unique to "Oz the Great and Powerful" yet still maintains some sort of tie to Baum's Land of Oz.)
There are also numerous jabs/dares when it comes to the 1939 movie. There is a glamorous wicked witch - which pays homage to the initial casting of 1930s Hollywood beauty Gale Sondergaard in the role of the Wicked Witch. There is also a bevy of dialogue that sounds ripped from the soundtrack of the 1939 movie - until such dialogue is fully delivered and you realize the phrase was either a line from the book or simply can stand on its own despite being uttered in the 1939 film ("I'll get you my pretty..." and "You put the 'merry' in the 'merry old Land of Oz").
The witches - good and wicked - are all wonderfully portrayed, and the sets are certainly much more visually appealing than Disney's last Oz-go-round "Return To Oz" (1985).
The BIGGEST PROBLEM for many viewers boils down to the fact that the script remains extremely faithful to L. Frank Baum's vision of Oz: Baum's perspective is/was that of a writer in the early part of the 20th century. Consequently, there is strong "pacifist" aspect to this movie's portrayal of the Land of Oz and its people, which - without giving anything away - either may not sit well with contemporary viewers or else, perhaps more importantly, dilutes the potential for a "slam-bang" finish.
Additionally, in Baum's original "Wizard," the title character, whether in spite of or else because of his "humbug" background, was all about helping the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion to realize that the goals they sought - a brain, a heart and courage - were mere token symbols for qualities already evident in these three characters (the Scarecrow, for instance, constantly figured out ways to overcome adversity while fighting the Wicked Witch of the West - yet, at the same time, he was always bemoaned the fact that he did not have a brain; likewise, the Tin Man cried at one point because he stepped on a bug and felt that such a "cruel" act would never have happened if he had a heart in the first place). Well, that attitude - "It's what ya do what ya got" (what Disney film first promoted that same notion??? BONUS POINTS if you can name it!) - permeates this film over and over. Consequently, the finale of this film may not be "confrontational" enough for many viewers, who like their Good/Evil battles to have more head-to-head violence.
Ultimately, Baum's writing reflected the attitudes - and indeed maturity - of the collective American mindset of the early 20th century, when Americans were much more naive and innocent than today. (Seriously - the notion of a Fairyland whose inhabitants do not kill their enemies in order to survive was only possible in the years prior to WWI!) As such, "Oz the Great and Powerful," may seem too "juvenile" and move too slow for contemporary viewers conditioned to the sagas of "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter."
On that note, it's probably wise to remember that the Oz books were the "Harry Potter" books of their time - albeit their longevity record outdoes Harry by a long-shot: over a hundred years.
My advice: Don't expect "Harry," DO expect BAUM and you'll be fine with this movie.
The American Girls
(1978– )
It was a BOMB - BIG TIME!
17 August 2011
I remember all the hype given the show. Okay - if you don't want to call it a "Charlie's Angels ripoff," you must at least acknowledge that the show would not have been greenlighted were it not for "Jiggle TV." I remember seeing the promo ad in TV Guide (is that even sold anymore?), with the main characters posed to look vibrant, girly-sexy and "commercial." Well - I'm GAY so of course I was into the whole "glamour-girls-on-an-adventure" show.
Well, the show may have been better-written, better-plotted than "Charlie's Angels," but it was nowhere as much fun.
That's why these "American Girls" are but a forgotten footnote in the history of 80s TV.
Well, the show may have been better-written, better-plotted than "Charlie's Angels," but it was nowhere as much fun.
That's why these "American Girls" are but a forgotten footnote in the history of 80s TV.
Broadway Damage
(1997)
"LOSER" movie
19 December 2010
You know it's bad when you watch this movie over ten years after its original release and nobody - but NOBODY - recognizes the actors in the film.
We might as well be watching Louise Fazenda.
To boot, this movie is filled with actors who SHOULD be stars in front of a gay audience.
Unfortunately, Mara Hobel of "Christina"/'Mommie Dearest" fame turns out to be just another overweight faghag (oh dear - is that being redundant?), while Hugh Panaro as the "gay fantasy" turns out to be just another "show tunes queen."
The other two "leads"? Well - one has a great body but neither ever went anywhere in terms of show business careers so why even comment???
That is MY review of this TRAINWRECK.
We might as well be watching Louise Fazenda.
To boot, this movie is filled with actors who SHOULD be stars in front of a gay audience.
Unfortunately, Mara Hobel of "Christina"/'Mommie Dearest" fame turns out to be just another overweight faghag (oh dear - is that being redundant?), while Hugh Panaro as the "gay fantasy" turns out to be just another "show tunes queen."
The other two "leads"? Well - one has a great body but neither ever went anywhere in terms of show business careers so why even comment???
That is MY review of this TRAINWRECK.
Youthh Knows No Pain
(2009)
UGH! Tepid tempest in a teapot
22 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie centers on Mccabe's fascination with plastic surgery (she just can't let the memory of her father go) - and also her own fears of aging and whether she will end up like her father's patients, wanting to look young.
Well, it's all for naught - all that happens is that we hear testimony from people who have had surgery and why they did it, in particular one woman who is obsessed but who becomes friendly with the filmmaker (we're supposed to feel this portrait is more intimate than the others I guess).
Anyway, eventually the filmmaker herself starts wondering what she would have done - but in the end, the movie needs more surgery than Mitch will (although some might disagree with that assessment).
Saw this at a preview in New York: the audience was like WTF?
Well, it's all for naught - all that happens is that we hear testimony from people who have had surgery and why they did it, in particular one woman who is obsessed but who becomes friendly with the filmmaker (we're supposed to feel this portrait is more intimate than the others I guess).
Anyway, eventually the filmmaker herself starts wondering what she would have done - but in the end, the movie needs more surgery than Mitch will (although some might disagree with that assessment).
Saw this at a preview in New York: the audience was like WTF?
Playing the Part
(1995)
UGH! An Exercise in Unbridled Self-Indulgence
17 April 2009
While certainly some segments are entertaining in their own right, the majority of this movie focuses on the notion of "poor little me" - the "me" being the filmmaker who is wrestling with telling her parents that she's gay.
It's all for naught: she never does; but, more importantly, we the viewers end up not caring!
The problem here is that the filmmaker had Ross McElloway (misspelled but I don't feel like looking his boring profile up) as her instructor.
One of the few positive things that can be said about McCabe's exercise in unbridled self- indulgence is that is nowhere as near as painful to watch (and definitely nowhere as achingly long) as her professor's "tour-de-torch" "Sherman's March".
Oh - one more thing - filmmaker McCabe no longer considers herself "gay" - so even those in the gay community who might be tempted to check this in the name of "sisterhood" you can fuggeddaboutit: Miss Mitch has moved on - and you should too by skipping over this now "out-dated" piece.
It's all for naught: she never does; but, more importantly, we the viewers end up not caring!
The problem here is that the filmmaker had Ross McElloway (misspelled but I don't feel like looking his boring profile up) as her instructor.
One of the few positive things that can be said about McCabe's exercise in unbridled self- indulgence is that is nowhere as near as painful to watch (and definitely nowhere as achingly long) as her professor's "tour-de-torch" "Sherman's March".
Oh - one more thing - filmmaker McCabe no longer considers herself "gay" - so even those in the gay community who might be tempted to check this in the name of "sisterhood" you can fuggeddaboutit: Miss Mitch has moved on - and you should too by skipping over this now "out-dated" piece.
The Lucy Show
(1962–1968)
Always HATED this show
6 January 2009
Lucille Ball was a headstrong actress.
When she was doing "I Love Lucy" she always yielded to Desi Arnaz because of her love for him and her respect for his management of the show.
When she did "Lucy Show" everything changed: she was divorced, her voice had changed because of doing the Broadway show "Wildcat" (it wrecked her vocal chords), she got Desilu Studios as part of the divorce settlement and she became a big time b!tch.
Her on screen technique changed changed as a result.
Her presence became totally mechanized: mugging and groaning through every scene.
Her insecurity at not having Desi meant she ruled the set, firing one actor when he stood up to her, using salty language to make people cringe and, finally, making uber-b!tch guest star Joan Crawford cry.
I think the real nadir of the series (and of all of Broadcast TV, really) came when she did that horribly, awful show where she gets drafted because a letter arrives for "Lou C. Carmichael" and her name in the series is "Lucy Carmichael".
The Army insists she be drafted nevertheless, and she gets her hair dutifully buzzed off while sporting a private uniform. Then they put her through boot camp.
STOOOOPID and actually UNCOMFORTABLE TO WATCH.
But it was "Lucy" - so I did.
Thus was the currency of Lucille Ball: even if they were pennies, they were pennies from Heaven.
I LOVE/MISS LUCY RICARDO!!!
When she was doing "I Love Lucy" she always yielded to Desi Arnaz because of her love for him and her respect for his management of the show.
When she did "Lucy Show" everything changed: she was divorced, her voice had changed because of doing the Broadway show "Wildcat" (it wrecked her vocal chords), she got Desilu Studios as part of the divorce settlement and she became a big time b!tch.
Her on screen technique changed changed as a result.
Her presence became totally mechanized: mugging and groaning through every scene.
Her insecurity at not having Desi meant she ruled the set, firing one actor when he stood up to her, using salty language to make people cringe and, finally, making uber-b!tch guest star Joan Crawford cry.
I think the real nadir of the series (and of all of Broadcast TV, really) came when she did that horribly, awful show where she gets drafted because a letter arrives for "Lou C. Carmichael" and her name in the series is "Lucy Carmichael".
The Army insists she be drafted nevertheless, and she gets her hair dutifully buzzed off while sporting a private uniform. Then they put her through boot camp.
STOOOOPID and actually UNCOMFORTABLE TO WATCH.
But it was "Lucy" - so I did.
Thus was the currency of Lucille Ball: even if they were pennies, they were pennies from Heaven.
I LOVE/MISS LUCY RICARDO!!!
Susan Slade
(1961)
Campy, contrived movie - but fun nonetheless
4 January 2009
Poor Connie Stevens!
She's a rich girl in love with a handsome man - and she does the nasty on a romantic ocean cruise.
She ends up preggers, and subsequently a single mom.
She and her mother Dorothy Maguire pay their dues as wealthy tormented women of the 60s, covering for each other, trying to maintain dignity in the face of possible scandal and additional tragedy.
But face it: over the course of the movie, Connie is sought by three hunky guys - why should I cry crocodile tears for her???
She doesn't come off as spoiled which is why you go with the many ridiculous turns of this film. Probably her best dramatic performance.
At times, you do want to slap Dorothy Maguire's character: she is Susan's mother, and incessantly insists on imposing 50s values on her daughter who is ready to break with tradition and embrace the 60s.
Oh - and then intermittently "Mrs. Howell" (Natalie Schaefer) shows up from time to time to remind everyone of the social tension in the situation - but she comes off as "Lovey" nonetheless (particularly when one segment of the film takes place amid palm trees in Central America).
Yes - campy, never really insipid, it's a fun movie!
She's a rich girl in love with a handsome man - and she does the nasty on a romantic ocean cruise.
She ends up preggers, and subsequently a single mom.
She and her mother Dorothy Maguire pay their dues as wealthy tormented women of the 60s, covering for each other, trying to maintain dignity in the face of possible scandal and additional tragedy.
But face it: over the course of the movie, Connie is sought by three hunky guys - why should I cry crocodile tears for her???
She doesn't come off as spoiled which is why you go with the many ridiculous turns of this film. Probably her best dramatic performance.
At times, you do want to slap Dorothy Maguire's character: she is Susan's mother, and incessantly insists on imposing 50s values on her daughter who is ready to break with tradition and embrace the 60s.
Oh - and then intermittently "Mrs. Howell" (Natalie Schaefer) shows up from time to time to remind everyone of the social tension in the situation - but she comes off as "Lovey" nonetheless (particularly when one segment of the film takes place amid palm trees in Central America).
Yes - campy, never really insipid, it's a fun movie!
Faces of Earth
(2007– )
Technically superb - but a STINKEROO nonetheless
30 August 2008
When are producers of geologic movies going to understand that having scientists speak on- camera about all the "awesome, cool" aspects of earth science is BORING.
When are said producers going to understand that all that animation is pointless if it's not explained correctly and visually?
AND - when is the entire video/geology community finally going to get past the idea that an asteroid is responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs???
"Faces of Earth" is a classic case of what happens when producers have too much money but too little insight into the subject they are presenting.
This subject matter can be very compelling when presented in the right way - but - so far - NO ONE HAS GOTTEN IT RIGHT.
When are said producers going to understand that all that animation is pointless if it's not explained correctly and visually?
AND - when is the entire video/geology community finally going to get past the idea that an asteroid is responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs???
"Faces of Earth" is a classic case of what happens when producers have too much money but too little insight into the subject they are presenting.
This subject matter can be very compelling when presented in the right way - but - so far - NO ONE HAS GOTTEN IT RIGHT.
Victory Through Air Power
(1943)
A Product of Its Time
12 May 2008
Disney like most other Americans in the early 1940s wanted to find some way to contribute to the war effort short of actually fighting. This film - along with the other wartime shorts on the DVD that contains it - stems from that impulse.
On one level, the film is meant to educate general audience in the scenarios of the history of flight, aerial combat and the (then) global crisis regarding the Allies vs. the Axis powers.
It does its job, entertaining when possible, affirming destruction and American/Allied dominance at critical points.
During my most recent viewing of it, I found that it almost seemed to make the case for nuclear warfare. Not outright, mind you, but through its continued emphasis of how Allied airstrikes, because of their remote points of origin, can/could not possibly inflict enough damage to Axis supply lines to shut them down. The film and its military authority Major Seversky propose that long range bombers are the answer - after which a presumably innovative animated version of just such a long range bomber is shown on screen: its long, clumsy-looking, with several large gunwales pointing out all over the plane's body. After seeing that, i could only surmise that military officials of the 1940s saw the folly in trying to build bigger and better airships to do in the Axis. Instead, per the film's rhetoric, the more logical solution seems/seemed to be: "Forget about trying to send a volley of superplanes; instead, send only one plane - but design its cargo to deliver Armageddon!"
On one level, the film is meant to educate general audience in the scenarios of the history of flight, aerial combat and the (then) global crisis regarding the Allies vs. the Axis powers.
It does its job, entertaining when possible, affirming destruction and American/Allied dominance at critical points.
During my most recent viewing of it, I found that it almost seemed to make the case for nuclear warfare. Not outright, mind you, but through its continued emphasis of how Allied airstrikes, because of their remote points of origin, can/could not possibly inflict enough damage to Axis supply lines to shut them down. The film and its military authority Major Seversky propose that long range bombers are the answer - after which a presumably innovative animated version of just such a long range bomber is shown on screen: its long, clumsy-looking, with several large gunwales pointing out all over the plane's body. After seeing that, i could only surmise that military officials of the 1940s saw the folly in trying to build bigger and better airships to do in the Axis. Instead, per the film's rhetoric, the more logical solution seems/seemed to be: "Forget about trying to send a volley of superplanes; instead, send only one plane - but design its cargo to deliver Armageddon!"
The Reluctant Dragon
(I) (1941)
Disney Cabinet Curio
12 May 2008
After filming the live-action sequences of "Fantasia" and hurting for a "feature release" following the financial fiascos of the aforementioned feature, presumably Disney rushed this into production (with most of it live-action, it not only cost less than a fully-animated counterpart of equal length, it took much less time to complete).
It purports to tell the story of how Disney animated cartoons are made, but, courtesy of a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, it turns out to be more fiction than fact.
Various processes - like sound recording, paint-mixing, cell-photographing, multi-planing, etc - are all upended for the sake of humor (in one instance, a complete cel of Donald Duck comes to life, in another instance, the sound effects crew creates an "unplanned" cacophony by knocking over all the equipment).
More to the point is that the sequences are not just staged, but they employ professional actors (such as Alan Ladd!) portraying Disney animators and other staff (although in certain instances, actual animators such as Woolie Reitherman and Ward Kimball make appearances).
The "Baby Weems" sequence is often commended by many for being innovative and the forerunner of the UPA-style that would dominant the art of animation in the 1950s, but the fact is that "Weems" is nothing more than a sleek, streamlined version of a "leica reel" (a film which combines the pre-recorded soundtrack with the animators' storyboard sketches, as a way of assessing how story pacing and timing are before *before* any time and effort are spent creating fully-animated sequences). The story is cute, the drawings are more fully- rendered than they would be in a genuine Leica reel so they are nice to see, but "innovative"? I don't think so.
The Goofy "How-to" sequence is okay (I never cared for the "How-To" series, but I know a similarly-themed version in "Saludos Amigos" with Goofy trying to be a Gaucho is funnier).
The title short - "The Reluctant Dragon" - is cute and funny. I don't think it rates as a classic, but because it is such a rarely-viewed piece it needs to be watched by all Disney-philes.
Considering its historic value, this movie is hardly a waste of time. It's just not one that deserves repeated viewings.
It purports to tell the story of how Disney animated cartoons are made, but, courtesy of a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, it turns out to be more fiction than fact.
Various processes - like sound recording, paint-mixing, cell-photographing, multi-planing, etc - are all upended for the sake of humor (in one instance, a complete cel of Donald Duck comes to life, in another instance, the sound effects crew creates an "unplanned" cacophony by knocking over all the equipment).
More to the point is that the sequences are not just staged, but they employ professional actors (such as Alan Ladd!) portraying Disney animators and other staff (although in certain instances, actual animators such as Woolie Reitherman and Ward Kimball make appearances).
The "Baby Weems" sequence is often commended by many for being innovative and the forerunner of the UPA-style that would dominant the art of animation in the 1950s, but the fact is that "Weems" is nothing more than a sleek, streamlined version of a "leica reel" (a film which combines the pre-recorded soundtrack with the animators' storyboard sketches, as a way of assessing how story pacing and timing are before *before* any time and effort are spent creating fully-animated sequences). The story is cute, the drawings are more fully- rendered than they would be in a genuine Leica reel so they are nice to see, but "innovative"? I don't think so.
The Goofy "How-to" sequence is okay (I never cared for the "How-To" series, but I know a similarly-themed version in "Saludos Amigos" with Goofy trying to be a Gaucho is funnier).
The title short - "The Reluctant Dragon" - is cute and funny. I don't think it rates as a classic, but because it is such a rarely-viewed piece it needs to be watched by all Disney-philes.
Considering its historic value, this movie is hardly a waste of time. It's just not one that deserves repeated viewings.
Sherman's March
(1985)
Ugh! An Exercise in Unbridled Self-Indulgence
5 May 2008
How dare Ross McElway declare his life experience to be an epic.
How dare he take my tax dollars and use it to go on a journey of self-exploration.
All we end up seeing is his inability to connect with women.
All we end up hearing is his whining about how he can't get laid.
I don't find it funny, amusing - or the least bit entertaining.
Any time a filmmaker decides to turn the camera lens on him/herself in order to capture "Poor Little Me," I lose interest immediately.
It reeks entirely of everything that pathetically-defined the (Poor Little) "Me" Generation.
Grow up Ross - get a real job.
(Oh - wait a minute - Harvard ended up hiring you as film prof - uh...guess that's why I attended YALE???)
How dare he take my tax dollars and use it to go on a journey of self-exploration.
All we end up seeing is his inability to connect with women.
All we end up hearing is his whining about how he can't get laid.
I don't find it funny, amusing - or the least bit entertaining.
Any time a filmmaker decides to turn the camera lens on him/herself in order to capture "Poor Little Me," I lose interest immediately.
It reeks entirely of everything that pathetically-defined the (Poor Little) "Me" Generation.
Grow up Ross - get a real job.
(Oh - wait a minute - Harvard ended up hiring you as film prof - uh...guess that's why I attended YALE???)
Torch Song
(1953)
Someone was being awfully mean to Joan...
4 May 2008
Second time I've seen it.
So many don't things add up I can't imagine this movie wasn't concocted as some sort of payback by some former-flunky-turned-Hollywood-producer out to "get back" at Joan.
The color styling is offputting - garish in way unlike any other movie of its time.
Joan ends up cast as a variant of her "Harriet Craig" character: controlling, bitchy, chewing every one and everything (like cigarettes) up, then spitting them out. (I guess they should have named the character "JENNY Craig"???)
She just comes off looking completely ridiculous.
Oh - that blackface number - "Two-Faced Women" - very curious. Referred to as "The Finale" by the show's stage manager, it bears the marks of some awful editing/re-shooting.
When they are first scrambling to take places, the chorus looks like they're decked out in coal-black face makeup (the burnt-cork of the old minstrel performers). Then Joan starts the number and looks similar.
Strangely, after she makes her way down to the male members of the chorus, she lightens up (on her makeup - NOT her hammy-acting), while they seem to have lost theirs. For the rest of the number, the blackface seems to have disappeared on the guys, lightened up considerably on the girls (I think one female may even be a real African-American), then at the close of the number suddenly everyone darkens down.
Finally, when Joan tears off her wig in frustration at Ty's departing despite her "wonderful" rendition of "Two-Faced Woman", she sports not only dark makeup but rhinestones on her eyebrows. The orange hair that sprouts out from under her black wig - disheveled as it is - makes her look like a troll doll from the 1970s (Joan was ahead of her time?). Oddly enough, her "look" seems a color complement to the getup Faye Dunaway put together for "Mommie Dearest":black- vs. white-face, orange vs. dark hair. It is in no way complimentary - it looks absurd, not dramatic, and I'm sure she was completely unhappy when she saw the result on screen (I think even audiences in the 1950s during the first-run of this trainwreck must have laughed at her bizarre appearance.)
Someone has also mentioned the "all-male" plus one party thrown by Jenny. Jeez - it's filled with gay entendres - but the strangest aspect of all is the fact that a genuine African- American actor is at the piano, apparently singing but in reality dubbed by professional dub artist Bill Lee.
From what I can tell, very little original music was written for this piece - a very curious decision considering MGM had all the song-writing talent they needed.
One dance rehearsal uses a Fred Astaire song from "Royal Wedding", in another instance a dropped number intended for Cyd Charisse in "The Bandwagon" (the aforementioned "Two- Faced Woman" blackface) gets a second attempt at life here via Joan (it dies an ignoble death unfortunately).
I just can't believe anyone was serious regarding this production - except the actors, in particular poor Joan who was desperate to regain her former crown at her old studio.
So many don't things add up I can't imagine this movie wasn't concocted as some sort of payback by some former-flunky-turned-Hollywood-producer out to "get back" at Joan.
The color styling is offputting - garish in way unlike any other movie of its time.
Joan ends up cast as a variant of her "Harriet Craig" character: controlling, bitchy, chewing every one and everything (like cigarettes) up, then spitting them out. (I guess they should have named the character "JENNY Craig"???)
She just comes off looking completely ridiculous.
Oh - that blackface number - "Two-Faced Women" - very curious. Referred to as "The Finale" by the show's stage manager, it bears the marks of some awful editing/re-shooting.
When they are first scrambling to take places, the chorus looks like they're decked out in coal-black face makeup (the burnt-cork of the old minstrel performers). Then Joan starts the number and looks similar.
Strangely, after she makes her way down to the male members of the chorus, she lightens up (on her makeup - NOT her hammy-acting), while they seem to have lost theirs. For the rest of the number, the blackface seems to have disappeared on the guys, lightened up considerably on the girls (I think one female may even be a real African-American), then at the close of the number suddenly everyone darkens down.
Finally, when Joan tears off her wig in frustration at Ty's departing despite her "wonderful" rendition of "Two-Faced Woman", she sports not only dark makeup but rhinestones on her eyebrows. The orange hair that sprouts out from under her black wig - disheveled as it is - makes her look like a troll doll from the 1970s (Joan was ahead of her time?). Oddly enough, her "look" seems a color complement to the getup Faye Dunaway put together for "Mommie Dearest":black- vs. white-face, orange vs. dark hair. It is in no way complimentary - it looks absurd, not dramatic, and I'm sure she was completely unhappy when she saw the result on screen (I think even audiences in the 1950s during the first-run of this trainwreck must have laughed at her bizarre appearance.)
Someone has also mentioned the "all-male" plus one party thrown by Jenny. Jeez - it's filled with gay entendres - but the strangest aspect of all is the fact that a genuine African- American actor is at the piano, apparently singing but in reality dubbed by professional dub artist Bill Lee.
From what I can tell, very little original music was written for this piece - a very curious decision considering MGM had all the song-writing talent they needed.
One dance rehearsal uses a Fred Astaire song from "Royal Wedding", in another instance a dropped number intended for Cyd Charisse in "The Bandwagon" (the aforementioned "Two- Faced Woman" blackface) gets a second attempt at life here via Joan (it dies an ignoble death unfortunately).
I just can't believe anyone was serious regarding this production - except the actors, in particular poor Joan who was desperate to regain her former crown at her old studio.
Eyes Wide Shut
(1999)
Totally "sex-phobic" film - and a trainwreck to boot
31 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this twice - thinking that perhaps I had missed something.
But, unlike "2001", I came up short. I thought this film was completely overproduced and Tom Cruise miscast.
The continuously-emphasized sexual tension is not merited by the facts of the film. What is this sex club that requires such surreptitiousness? Nothing out of the ordinary - nothing like the infamous Plato's Retreat of the 1970s. Sex in the club seems terribly "ordinary" (no dark realizations of taboo practices).
And one has only to utter a password to gain entry? Aw come-on - if the members are THAT exclusive, they surely would have more secure procedures to ensure restricted admission.
More to the point: every time something sexual is about to happen in the movie, it takes on a negative aspect (a sexual encounter turns out to include an underage girl, another possible sex partner is revealed to have HIV, etc).
And then there's Tom Cruise, who, by his own admission, had trouble with the part. Small wonder: he doesn't have the suave intellectual character needed for the part. He's used to playing highly physically-expressed heroes - not troubled degreed professionals. (He's also never looked more ridiculous standing next to his former wife Nicole - who towers over him despite the fact she must have been sporting flats.)
The movie is beautifully photographed, however, and lit to the hilt: golds, blues and reds all sensuously rendered in soft focus. But it all seems so unnecessary - even distracting - considering how un-sensational the storyline becomes.
Poor Stanley Kubrick - I'm sure he tried very hard to forge a mystery filled with sexual innuendo and ambiguity, but I think, in the end, he simply realized it was a lost cause. He signed off on it - then signed off on Life - leaving Tom and Nicole feeling/looking guilty for pushing him over the edge due to their inability to connect with the subject matter, And they got divorced! (I could swear their "love scenes" were totally devoid of any chemistry).
But, unlike "2001", I came up short. I thought this film was completely overproduced and Tom Cruise miscast.
The continuously-emphasized sexual tension is not merited by the facts of the film. What is this sex club that requires such surreptitiousness? Nothing out of the ordinary - nothing like the infamous Plato's Retreat of the 1970s. Sex in the club seems terribly "ordinary" (no dark realizations of taboo practices).
And one has only to utter a password to gain entry? Aw come-on - if the members are THAT exclusive, they surely would have more secure procedures to ensure restricted admission.
More to the point: every time something sexual is about to happen in the movie, it takes on a negative aspect (a sexual encounter turns out to include an underage girl, another possible sex partner is revealed to have HIV, etc).
And then there's Tom Cruise, who, by his own admission, had trouble with the part. Small wonder: he doesn't have the suave intellectual character needed for the part. He's used to playing highly physically-expressed heroes - not troubled degreed professionals. (He's also never looked more ridiculous standing next to his former wife Nicole - who towers over him despite the fact she must have been sporting flats.)
The movie is beautifully photographed, however, and lit to the hilt: golds, blues and reds all sensuously rendered in soft focus. But it all seems so unnecessary - even distracting - considering how un-sensational the storyline becomes.
Poor Stanley Kubrick - I'm sure he tried very hard to forge a mystery filled with sexual innuendo and ambiguity, but I think, in the end, he simply realized it was a lost cause. He signed off on it - then signed off on Life - leaving Tom and Nicole feeling/looking guilty for pushing him over the edge due to their inability to connect with the subject matter, And they got divorced! (I could swear their "love scenes" were totally devoid of any chemistry).
Essence of "Deconstuctivism"
21 February 2008
All this film is footage of woman posing - I mean - REALLY POSING.
Sitting there, looking at the camera, not moving (perhaps they are testing light and color on her skin?).
At any rate, she doesn't move.
But the real kicker here is that the frame showing her is off-center on the screen.
So the audience sees not just one but two frames of her on the running film - as well as the edge of the film and the sprocket holes - at CENTER SCREEN no less - that pass by. These holes, unlike the images of the woman, are much more variable and therefore flicker. As such, they are much more apt to gain your attention.
And there you have it, the essence of "deconstructivism": the marginal becomes center, and the center becomes marginal.
And there you have:
Sitting there, looking at the camera, not moving (perhaps they are testing light and color on her skin?).
At any rate, she doesn't move.
But the real kicker here is that the frame showing her is off-center on the screen.
So the audience sees not just one but two frames of her on the running film - as well as the edge of the film and the sprocket holes - at CENTER SCREEN no less - that pass by. These holes, unlike the images of the woman, are much more variable and therefore flicker. As such, they are much more apt to gain your attention.
And there you have it, the essence of "deconstructivism": the marginal becomes center, and the center becomes marginal.
And there you have:
Excellent film: Innovative and Biting
20 February 2008
This movie stands as an indictment of the whole American Middle Class culture of the 70s and its associated hypocrisy.
In the heart of the Age of Aquarius, Karen and Richard are selected to sell "young and innocent" as "happening" (one of the most hilarious lines in the film).
The anorexia, the implied homosexuality of Richard (honey, we ALL KNEW back then...), the California Suburbian culture and the politics of the time are all woven into a vivid presentation of the sad reality of Karen's life.
Despite all the "camp" associated with the film's style of presentation, the storyline is very direct and to the point: Karen, for whatever reason and despite all her success, remained anorexic.
I suppose ultimately you might call this movie a "murder mystery" - since the causes of anorexia are still not known with any certainty.
I think the only people who cannot find this movie involving are those who actually knew Karen. To them I say: this film, for all its irreverent humor, is still a tribute to her.
In the heart of the Age of Aquarius, Karen and Richard are selected to sell "young and innocent" as "happening" (one of the most hilarious lines in the film).
The anorexia, the implied homosexuality of Richard (honey, we ALL KNEW back then...), the California Suburbian culture and the politics of the time are all woven into a vivid presentation of the sad reality of Karen's life.
Despite all the "camp" associated with the film's style of presentation, the storyline is very direct and to the point: Karen, for whatever reason and despite all her success, remained anorexic.
I suppose ultimately you might call this movie a "murder mystery" - since the causes of anorexia are still not known with any certainty.
I think the only people who cannot find this movie involving are those who actually knew Karen. To them I say: this film, for all its irreverent humor, is still a tribute to her.
Scorpio Rising
(1963)
Gay Black leather scene
6 February 2008
The film turns out to be a riff on the gay fetish for black leather - and all the imagery/rites associated with it.
The Black Leather scene - certainly in the 60s - was very codified, and incorporated drugs (much like all gay culture at the time).
The songs chosen have, no doubt, much appeal to the gay community of the time ("Heat Wave" is also heard in "Boys in the Band), most of them citing lustful love from a female point of view.
There are coy/blatant references to water sports, anal rape, fisting and "pussy" (in the form of an on screen cat).
Anger's black leather queens doll themselves up in leather gear which is uber-accentuated with studs and other forms of steel (no real bikers ever wear that stuff). This is then intercut with footage of genuine, presumably str8 biker clubs (note the motorcyclers in the exterior shots - those racing each other - do not sport all the "accessories" that the black leather queens do, but, rather, "simple" black leather jackets, besides which, the biker clubbers actually seem to be wearing SHIRTS under their jackets - as opposed to the leather queens who do not).
There is also plenty of idolization of James Dean and Marlon Brando, two movie stars who, in addition to having gained fame as young punks who wear leather jackets, were also two of the most sexually-ambiguous male stars of their time. Anger, having grown up in Hollywood, might even have known men who slept with Dean and Brando! The whole Jesus/male-bonding thing is ingenious. As for the references to Hitler, well, perhaps Anger was Jewish and put Adolf in there to make it seem as if the life of a black leather queen is one which continually lived on the edge, always testing limits to see how far can go beyond them. Or maybe Anger was simply citing irony in the persecution of gays during the Third Reich compared to the subsequent gay American leather culture of the 50s/60s which is grounded in the role-playing of bondage and domination.
The Black Leather scene - certainly in the 60s - was very codified, and incorporated drugs (much like all gay culture at the time).
The songs chosen have, no doubt, much appeal to the gay community of the time ("Heat Wave" is also heard in "Boys in the Band), most of them citing lustful love from a female point of view.
There are coy/blatant references to water sports, anal rape, fisting and "pussy" (in the form of an on screen cat).
Anger's black leather queens doll themselves up in leather gear which is uber-accentuated with studs and other forms of steel (no real bikers ever wear that stuff). This is then intercut with footage of genuine, presumably str8 biker clubs (note the motorcyclers in the exterior shots - those racing each other - do not sport all the "accessories" that the black leather queens do, but, rather, "simple" black leather jackets, besides which, the biker clubbers actually seem to be wearing SHIRTS under their jackets - as opposed to the leather queens who do not).
There is also plenty of idolization of James Dean and Marlon Brando, two movie stars who, in addition to having gained fame as young punks who wear leather jackets, were also two of the most sexually-ambiguous male stars of their time. Anger, having grown up in Hollywood, might even have known men who slept with Dean and Brando! The whole Jesus/male-bonding thing is ingenious. As for the references to Hitler, well, perhaps Anger was Jewish and put Adolf in there to make it seem as if the life of a black leather queen is one which continually lived on the edge, always testing limits to see how far can go beyond them. Or maybe Anger was simply citing irony in the persecution of gays during the Third Reich compared to the subsequent gay American leather culture of the 50s/60s which is grounded in the role-playing of bondage and domination.
Lot in Sodom
(1933)
Gay version of "Reefer Madness"
20 January 2008
I was pleasantly shocked when viewing this film for a class I'm taking.
All those beautiful images of bare-skinned men: you can't construct images like that without having a gay eye.
What we have here is the story of Lot: too much homosexuality and God will strike you down. But, in order to illustrate exactly what was/is so sinful, the filmmakers Watson and Webber, explicitly detail bare male bodies and the actions/emotions they inspire (from other bare male bodies).
At least one young man's glance directly into the camera is "cruising" glance.
And what beautiful men these Sodomites are! The actors were clearly carefully selected for their rippled bodies - and they seem to have no problem running around, chasing after each other. Clearly, there was some "camaraderie" among them. And, clearly, the filmmakers did not simply hold an open casting call and take whatever guys showed up. Those boys were "screened."
What really got me was the presumed "straight" men - Lot and a few others - are old and made-up (well, Lot is made-up) so as to appear very unattractive, unappealing.
What I took away from this film was a sense of "the world of gay men be 'sinful' but look how ugly the world of heterosexuals is." We must remember that this is "avant-garde" film: if it doesn't make sense to you, well then the filmmakers succeeded in their efforts. Pieces like this are meant more to evoke moods more than illustrate narratives. That said, "Lot in Sodom" is probably one of the few to maintain a recognizable narrative. (And that title - I could almost swear it's something of a joke - maybe "(A)Lot in Sodom"?)
All those beautiful images of bare-skinned men: you can't construct images like that without having a gay eye.
What we have here is the story of Lot: too much homosexuality and God will strike you down. But, in order to illustrate exactly what was/is so sinful, the filmmakers Watson and Webber, explicitly detail bare male bodies and the actions/emotions they inspire (from other bare male bodies).
At least one young man's glance directly into the camera is "cruising" glance.
And what beautiful men these Sodomites are! The actors were clearly carefully selected for their rippled bodies - and they seem to have no problem running around, chasing after each other. Clearly, there was some "camaraderie" among them. And, clearly, the filmmakers did not simply hold an open casting call and take whatever guys showed up. Those boys were "screened."
What really got me was the presumed "straight" men - Lot and a few others - are old and made-up (well, Lot is made-up) so as to appear very unattractive, unappealing.
What I took away from this film was a sense of "the world of gay men be 'sinful' but look how ugly the world of heterosexuals is." We must remember that this is "avant-garde" film: if it doesn't make sense to you, well then the filmmakers succeeded in their efforts. Pieces like this are meant more to evoke moods more than illustrate narratives. That said, "Lot in Sodom" is probably one of the few to maintain a recognizable narrative. (And that title - I could almost swear it's something of a joke - maybe "(A)Lot in Sodom"?)
Pippin: His Life and Times
(1982 TV Movie)
It's all we got...
15 January 2008
David Sheehan needs to be drawn and quartered for his handling of this classic musical (ugh - the cross-fades during the Manson trio dance, the poor framing, etc).
I love Chita Rivera but she is bit miscast as Fastrada.
William Katt might sound better if he was miked to the camera.
On the other hand, this is the only record we have this amazing musical circus. Obviously, even in pristine state, it would still lose something because it really is a live theater piece.
I simply have newbies watch it, explain the mistakes/edits, and have them listen to the original cast album.
I love Chita Rivera but she is bit miscast as Fastrada.
William Katt might sound better if he was miked to the camera.
On the other hand, this is the only record we have this amazing musical circus. Obviously, even in pristine state, it would still lose something because it really is a live theater piece.
I simply have newbies watch it, explain the mistakes/edits, and have them listen to the original cast album.
Tell Your Friends