Last night I watched Billion Dollar Brain[^]. Not a great movie but not a bad one either. I have to admit I'm a sucker for a Michael Caine movie, particularly his earlier work and, having noticed in 'the guide' that this movie was directed by Ken Russell that was it; decision made.
Ken Russell is well known for his musical films, starting in the 60's with biographies of composers of the Romantic and Post Romantic era, people such as Elgar, Bax and Delius. I haven't managed to catch most of those earlier works; they just don't seem to be shown any more and perhaps no longer exist. The BBC, for whom most of these earlier films were made, seemed to make a practice of destroying material in the early 70's.
Just as well, then, that Ken made his transition to 'real' film at the end of the 60's; thus his 'versions' of the life of Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Liszt; not forgetting Tommy! I'll be the first to admit that The Music Lovers[^] is probably far more fantasy than fact but I don't let that minor detail get in the way of enjoying a visual and musical feast. Such a pity it's not available on DVD and I haven't managed to see it in 20 years!
In Mahler[^] he really went all out; images of Nazis goosestepping on Gustavs coffin anyone? Brunhilde feeding Gustav pork after he slays the dragon and following it with a glass of milk! Bad taste from the decade of bad taste. I do have that one on DVD.
I may not recognise the music of some minor artist of the 1980s when it crops up but the moment they play three bars of a major composers symphony I know it! Thus to the scene in Billion Dollar Brain where Harry Palmer (Caine) is being cleaned up before being led into the concert. Masterful piece of misdirection there; the scene has all the indicators that he's about to be tortured. Come to think of it, many folk might consider being dragged into a Symphony Concert as torture!
Colonel Stok comes into view, a tear running down his cheek as the symphony crashes to a close. He imparts the information that Shostakovich wrote the symphony in Leningrad in 1941 during the siege. In other words, it's supposed to be the 7th Symphony.
Uh huh. The music we actually hear at this point is the end of the 11th Symphony, written in 1957.
Just a minor detail but one that surprised me given Ken Russell's pedigree.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Monday, August 04, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
He's breathing!
As I think I've mentioned once or twice before, I, with my friends, was rather fond of going to movie matinees in the mid 1960's. That was a time when ones choices on TV were somewhat less than they are now. Whether choices today are better is another question entirely. There's nothing quite like having 108 channels of TV and nothing to watch! Fortunately that doesn't happen to me; TCM run a lot of old movies and IFC and Sundance aren't too bad either. You should have heard Andrew though, before he discovered World of Warcraft. 'There's nothing on!' he'd complain. 'What about The African Queen' I'd ask. 'Oh, that? That's old!'
There is no response to that!
But I digress. Back in the 60's we'd go to the Saturday Arvo matinee. A feature film after the intermission; cartoons, a newsreel and a serial before the intermission. Intermission? I still get a chuckle watching the three hour marathons made in the 60's (Spartacus, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, The Great Race, 2001: A space Odyssey) when the intermission placard comes up. I very much doubt todays teenagers have ever seen the word; certainly not at the movies.
I can't remember much about the serials; I think they ran Flash Gordon[^] once or twice. For the most part the serials seemed to be about cowboys fighting the injuns! We'd sit there in the dark munching on Jaffas[^] and drink in this alien culture. Whenever someone would fall with an arrow in the back we'd watch the actor. And inevitably someone (usually me) would shout 'he's breathing!'. Laughter throughout the theatre.
Good times.
I was watching In the light of the moon[^] tonight (US title is Ed Gein[^]) and couldn't help noticing, in the scene where we see his brother laid out in the coffin, that the actor was breathing. Someone sure screwed up there!
I called Sonya up to see (she and I have long since accepted that we don't like the movies the other likes). Her comment? 'I don't know how you notice things like that.'
Practice :-)
There is no response to that!
But I digress. Back in the 60's we'd go to the Saturday Arvo matinee. A feature film after the intermission; cartoons, a newsreel and a serial before the intermission. Intermission? I still get a chuckle watching the three hour marathons made in the 60's (Spartacus, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, The Great Race, 2001: A space Odyssey) when the intermission placard comes up. I very much doubt todays teenagers have ever seen the word; certainly not at the movies.
I can't remember much about the serials; I think they ran Flash Gordon[^] once or twice. For the most part the serials seemed to be about cowboys fighting the injuns! We'd sit there in the dark munching on Jaffas[^] and drink in this alien culture. Whenever someone would fall with an arrow in the back we'd watch the actor. And inevitably someone (usually me) would shout 'he's breathing!'. Laughter throughout the theatre.
Good times.
I was watching In the light of the moon[^] tonight (US title is Ed Gein[^]) and couldn't help noticing, in the scene where we see his brother laid out in the coffin, that the actor was breathing. Someone sure screwed up there!
I called Sonya up to see (she and I have long since accepted that we don't like the movies the other likes). Her comment? 'I don't know how you notice things like that.'
Practice :-)
Monday, May 26, 2008
No kidding
Going through the EPG (Electronic Program Guide) thoughtfully provided by Microsoft here in the US for Media Centre PC's I noticed a movie precis a few days ago. No, I can't for the life of me remember just *what* the movie title was apart from having the word 'Calendar' in there, and it's been and gone. Methinks I didn't miss much.
The precis went thus; 'After Miss January and Miss February are killed a detective suspects Miss March may be next'.
You reckon???
The precis went thus; 'After Miss January and Miss February are killed a detective suspects Miss March may be next'.
You reckon???
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Suspending disbelief
Until recently I'd never seen any of the 'Airport' movies. You might think that was a good thing. I'm beginning to believe it was.
Actually I haven't seen Airport '75 yet; it's running this weekend and I've set the HTPC to record.
The original cropped up a few weeks back and I watched it a week or two later. That's one of the nice things about the HTPC/PVR revolution. Just set it to record and it sits there on the hard disk until you're ready. So much easier than the bad old days of grubbing around for a spare videotape, to say nothing of making sure it was loaded and programmed for the right channel/time. Then labelling the tape so one could find it again; that or go through a pile of tapes looking for the right one. Though it was a mere quarter of a century ago the old way of doing things seems so antediluvian! And there we were, happier than a dog with two dicks, because we could actually record movies off TV!
It's about this time I can imagine you dusting off a walking frame for me!
Anyway, I thoroughly agreed with the reviewer who named Airport (made in 1969) as the 'Best movie of 1944'!. A pot boiler if ever I saw one. Actually that's a trifle unfair, it was quite watchable if somewhat predictable. Now I can say I've seen it without ever feeling the need to see it again.
Thus to 'The Concorde... Airport '79'[^]. An unforgettable two hours of comedy. I understand, incidentally, that one was not supposed to refer to the real Concorde as 'The Concorde' but simply as 'Concorde'.
If the real Concorde had been able to pull off all the stunts we see in the movie it'd be one formidable plane, if somewhat uncomfortable for the passengers. I laughed out loud at the scene where the pilots put their oxygen masks on, open the cockpit window and fire a starting pistol out to distract the heat seeking missile!
If you haven't seen the movie, this is toward the start; just after they've departed from Washington DC. We, the audience, are asked to believe that after being pursued by a missile, which they handily defeat, they continue across the Atlantic to France as though nothing had happened. No obnoxious passenger loudly demanding to know what happened. More to the point, no FAA order to return to Washington and no military escort. Or perhaps I'm just seeing 1979 from a 2008 perspective? I think not. If this had happened in real life I'm sure all of the above would have happened, even in the innocent days of 1979.
So they fly across the Atlantic and are attacked by a Phantom Jet! Four missiles plus ack ack. More aerial gyrations. A supposedly nail-biting scene where they hurtle down the runway at landing and stop with the nose wheel a couple of metres short of the end of the runway.
Does the French equivalent of the FAA impound the plane, the pilots and the passengers? Does the US government get involved in an investigation into the origins of this mysterious Phantom, handily crashed into an ocean? No sir, they do not! An evening of repairs and the plane is ready to resume flight the next morning, to finish it's journey to Moscow! And every single passenger gets back on! No close ups of passengers agonising over whether to board.
Now during the repair phase one of the mechanics put some kind of booby trap on the cargo door. As they're taxiing out for the Moscow departure this mechanic, for reasons I didn't quite catch, starts running around and ends up on the runway with the Concorde bearing down on him during it's takeoff. I have to admit that by this point I was beyond caring what motivated any of the plot and I couldn't be bothered going back to try and catch up. Sufficient that he ducks and runs across just in front of the landing gear as Concorde leaves the ground!
By this time I'm just about going through the roof wondering at the total lack of curiousity shown by everyone involved (up on the screen). Let's see. On a single flight the crew and passengers have been involved in a near miss with a heat seeking missile AND almost been shot down by a Phantom. On the very next take off someone runs in front of the plane as it's taking off. And no one stops to wonder if there's something strange happening!
After that the sight of the plane making a crash landing on an Alpine slope down a ski run was quite incapable of surprising me!
Interesting movie!
Actually I haven't seen Airport '75 yet; it's running this weekend and I've set the HTPC to record.
The original cropped up a few weeks back and I watched it a week or two later. That's one of the nice things about the HTPC/PVR revolution. Just set it to record and it sits there on the hard disk until you're ready. So much easier than the bad old days of grubbing around for a spare videotape, to say nothing of making sure it was loaded and programmed for the right channel/time. Then labelling the tape so one could find it again; that or go through a pile of tapes looking for the right one. Though it was a mere quarter of a century ago the old way of doing things seems so antediluvian! And there we were, happier than a dog with two dicks, because we could actually record movies off TV!
It's about this time I can imagine you dusting off a walking frame for me!
Anyway, I thoroughly agreed with the reviewer who named Airport (made in 1969) as the 'Best movie of 1944'!. A pot boiler if ever I saw one. Actually that's a trifle unfair, it was quite watchable if somewhat predictable. Now I can say I've seen it without ever feeling the need to see it again.
Thus to 'The Concorde... Airport '79'[^]. An unforgettable two hours of comedy. I understand, incidentally, that one was not supposed to refer to the real Concorde as 'The Concorde' but simply as 'Concorde'.
If the real Concorde had been able to pull off all the stunts we see in the movie it'd be one formidable plane, if somewhat uncomfortable for the passengers. I laughed out loud at the scene where the pilots put their oxygen masks on, open the cockpit window and fire a starting pistol out to distract the heat seeking missile!
If you haven't seen the movie, this is toward the start; just after they've departed from Washington DC. We, the audience, are asked to believe that after being pursued by a missile, which they handily defeat, they continue across the Atlantic to France as though nothing had happened. No obnoxious passenger loudly demanding to know what happened. More to the point, no FAA order to return to Washington and no military escort. Or perhaps I'm just seeing 1979 from a 2008 perspective? I think not. If this had happened in real life I'm sure all of the above would have happened, even in the innocent days of 1979.
So they fly across the Atlantic and are attacked by a Phantom Jet! Four missiles plus ack ack. More aerial gyrations. A supposedly nail-biting scene where they hurtle down the runway at landing and stop with the nose wheel a couple of metres short of the end of the runway.
Does the French equivalent of the FAA impound the plane, the pilots and the passengers? Does the US government get involved in an investigation into the origins of this mysterious Phantom, handily crashed into an ocean? No sir, they do not! An evening of repairs and the plane is ready to resume flight the next morning, to finish it's journey to Moscow! And every single passenger gets back on! No close ups of passengers agonising over whether to board.
Now during the repair phase one of the mechanics put some kind of booby trap on the cargo door. As they're taxiing out for the Moscow departure this mechanic, for reasons I didn't quite catch, starts running around and ends up on the runway with the Concorde bearing down on him during it's takeoff. I have to admit that by this point I was beyond caring what motivated any of the plot and I couldn't be bothered going back to try and catch up. Sufficient that he ducks and runs across just in front of the landing gear as Concorde leaves the ground!
By this time I'm just about going through the roof wondering at the total lack of curiousity shown by everyone involved (up on the screen). Let's see. On a single flight the crew and passengers have been involved in a near miss with a heat seeking missile AND almost been shot down by a Phantom. On the very next take off someone runs in front of the plane as it's taking off. And no one stops to wonder if there's something strange happening!
After that the sight of the plane making a crash landing on an Alpine slope down a ski run was quite incapable of surprising me!
Interesting movie!
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Shameless
A month or so ago Cox Cable (may they rot in hell) moved Turner Classic Movies[^] out of the Analog Channel range into the Digital Tier. No warning; it just wasn't there on channel 42 one evening, replaced with a placard advising that if we wanted to continue receiving TCM we had to get a digital reciever.
Apparently they *did* advertise the change in advance, in the print media. Who do you know takes the paper on a daily basis anymore? I sure don't. Even back in the pre internet days I didn't take the paper on a daily basis (Saturday Age[^] yes, other days as the fancy took me). I still read the Age online every day but it doesn't quite compare to the pleasure of relaxing over the pages on a Saturday morning with a plate of bacon and eggs and a couple of coffees!
After a bout of swearing it was time to take stock of the options. You understand that with the kinds of films I most enjoy the loss of TCM was a major loss indeed! Long story short I ended up subscribing to the Cox Digital service, including two set top boxes, to feed Bigboy, our HTPC. We stuck with Cox because any other option meant we lost analog cable, watched by Morgan and Andrew. They want digital they can earn it!
Also, based on a mistaken assumption, I subscribed to the five bucks a month movie tier. The mistaken assumption was the result of Cox's choice of channel number for TCM; it's now on 199 and channels 190 to 198 are part of the movie tier; I assumed that not only had the bastards moved it out of analog but had added it to the extra fee subscription service. Wrong assumption but, in the event, not a bad outcome. The extra channels include Sundance and Independent Film Channel and so far it's been worth the extra five bucks.
Incidentally, when I still lived in Australia I was a subscriber to Optus Cable. They also ran (may still do for all I know) TCM. Good times.
Anyways, an unexpected pleasure from the change is the discovery of Shameless[^]. The first episode I caught was the second episode. Alas, they don't seem to have the nous to run the episodes in the original order!
I have to admit it was a bit of bastardry to suggest to my wife that she might enjoy watching with me; she can't understand a word they say though I did assure her they were speaking English. I fear I have rather more experience watching British TV than she does but some of the accents are a bit extreme even for me.
This is rather different British comedy than I'm used to. None of the gentility of the sixties and seventies, no sir, this is robust language at its best. I'm pretty sure I don't want to see it broadcast on PBS - the sound would be half bleeps! I'm being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. But it's all good stuff! You really wouldn't be dead for quids would you?
Apparently they *did* advertise the change in advance, in the print media. Who do you know takes the paper on a daily basis anymore? I sure don't. Even back in the pre internet days I didn't take the paper on a daily basis (Saturday Age[^] yes, other days as the fancy took me). I still read the Age online every day but it doesn't quite compare to the pleasure of relaxing over the pages on a Saturday morning with a plate of bacon and eggs and a couple of coffees!
After a bout of swearing it was time to take stock of the options. You understand that with the kinds of films I most enjoy the loss of TCM was a major loss indeed! Long story short I ended up subscribing to the Cox Digital service, including two set top boxes, to feed Bigboy, our HTPC. We stuck with Cox because any other option meant we lost analog cable, watched by Morgan and Andrew. They want digital they can earn it!
Also, based on a mistaken assumption, I subscribed to the five bucks a month movie tier. The mistaken assumption was the result of Cox's choice of channel number for TCM; it's now on 199 and channels 190 to 198 are part of the movie tier; I assumed that not only had the bastards moved it out of analog but had added it to the extra fee subscription service. Wrong assumption but, in the event, not a bad outcome. The extra channels include Sundance and Independent Film Channel and so far it's been worth the extra five bucks.
Incidentally, when I still lived in Australia I was a subscriber to Optus Cable. They also ran (may still do for all I know) TCM. Good times.
Anyways, an unexpected pleasure from the change is the discovery of Shameless[^]. The first episode I caught was the second episode. Alas, they don't seem to have the nous to run the episodes in the original order!
I have to admit it was a bit of bastardry to suggest to my wife that she might enjoy watching with me; she can't understand a word they say though I did assure her they were speaking English. I fear I have rather more experience watching British TV than she does but some of the accents are a bit extreme even for me.
This is rather different British comedy than I'm used to. None of the gentility of the sixties and seventies, no sir, this is robust language at its best. I'm pretty sure I don't want to see it broadcast on PBS - the sound would be half bleeps! I'm being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. But it's all good stuff! You really wouldn't be dead for quids would you?
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Ricardo Montalban
It would hardly come as a surprise to longer term readers that I know little about contemporary movies, and care less. Well, not entirely true; I saw quite a few movies at the local cinema in 2002, movies such as Monsters Ball, Blackhawk Down, LOTR:FOTR, the remake of The Time Machine and so on. But for the most part my interest is focussed on movies from the 1920's through to the late 1950's. Methinks you already knew that!
Of course this places me at a disadvantage when playing Trivial Pursuit; for some unaccountable reason the Australian Edition seems to expect knowledge of contemporary (or contemporary for the time, mid 1980s) movies. For all I know the US edition or the British Edition might have a similar focus but no one plays Trivial Pursuit anymore, do they?
It became a standing joke amongst my friends of the time that whenever called upon to name the actor who played such and such a role I'd always, after a moments reflection, come up with Ricardo Montalban. It seemed as good a guess as any and consistency would eventually see the odds go my way and Ricardo Montalban be the correct answer! Indeed, they'd confer whenever it fell to my lot to answer movie questions, to ensure the answer wasn't Ricardo Montalban!
Of course this places me at a disadvantage when playing Trivial Pursuit; for some unaccountable reason the Australian Edition seems to expect knowledge of contemporary (or contemporary for the time, mid 1980s) movies. For all I know the US edition or the British Edition might have a similar focus but no one plays Trivial Pursuit anymore, do they?
It became a standing joke amongst my friends of the time that whenever called upon to name the actor who played such and such a role I'd always, after a moments reflection, come up with Ricardo Montalban. It seemed as good a guess as any and consistency would eventually see the odds go my way and Ricardo Montalban be the correct answer! Indeed, they'd confer whenever it fell to my lot to answer movie questions, to ensure the answer wasn't Ricardo Montalban!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
2010
24 years after it was released, and nearly 40 years after the movie it pretends to be a sequel to, I finally watched 2010 tonight.
Now I'll admit that when I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in June 1968, I came out with mixed feelings. I had no idea what the movie was 'about'. But I had no doubt whatsoever that what I'd just seen was magnificent. A couple of hundred viewings and the aforementioned nearly 40 years later I still don't know what it's 'about'.
And I don't really care. What's music 'about'? A painting? Why does a botrytis riesling taste so damn good when paired with blue cheese?
I thought, when I sat down to write this, that I'd already written about Kubrick's masterpiece but I find I haven't. Maybe a reference or two to the feeling, emerging on a bright sunny Melbourne winter afternoon, that we'd seen what it must be like to walk upon the moon; this a year before Neil Armstrong actually did it.
Now that might seem silly if you weren't a technologically minded teenager at the time but I had the good fortune to be just that and the way I remember it is that we seemed to be saturated with NASA. This wasn't all that much after the first international TV links were established and it was still quite the novelty to see footage, today, of something that had happened on the other side of the world on that very same day.
There was also a surfeit (in the pre-google age) of information relating to the Apollo program. I lapped it all up. Damned if I can remember the numbers anymore but at that time I could have recited the escape velocities of all the inner planets and the moon!
I still vividly remember riding my bike up Mulhall Drive, St Albans, just at sunset in December 1968 and looking up at the moon; knowing that the first manned orbit was happening. I think that was Apollo 8 (Wikipedia confirms that it was).
So I walked out of that first viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey mightily puzzled yet elated. It was probably the most exciting movie I'd seen up until then and there have been very few more exciting since! Indeed, I suspect that the movie also got me interested in classical music; certainly I remember buying the introduction to 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' on a single the same year. Came as quite a suprise when I heard the entire work; the bit we all know even if we don't know we know it runs for all of two and a half minutes out of a total of forty minutes!
Did I enjoy 2010? You guessed that from my opening line 'the movie it pretends to be a sequel to' that I didn't much. Too much of a contrast with 2001. In the first nothing is explained; we're expected to make up our own minds. In the later movie too damn much is explained. Did I really need to know that HAL did what he did because he was forced to lie?
And that 'something wonderful is going to happen?'. Give me a break.
So no, I still don't think I know what 2001: A Space Odyssey is 'about'. And I'm perfectly happy with that. I'll treasure the memory of arguing with friends about whether this or that detail was 'correct' (the orange juice in the straw was my favourite - we never could decide whether air pressure was an adequate explanation for it's motion once Heywood Floyd stopped sucking).
And I'm quite sure the next time I play the movie I'll enjoy it just as much as I always have!
Now I'll admit that when I first saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in June 1968, I came out with mixed feelings. I had no idea what the movie was 'about'. But I had no doubt whatsoever that what I'd just seen was magnificent. A couple of hundred viewings and the aforementioned nearly 40 years later I still don't know what it's 'about'.
And I don't really care. What's music 'about'? A painting? Why does a botrytis riesling taste so damn good when paired with blue cheese?
I thought, when I sat down to write this, that I'd already written about Kubrick's masterpiece but I find I haven't. Maybe a reference or two to the feeling, emerging on a bright sunny Melbourne winter afternoon, that we'd seen what it must be like to walk upon the moon; this a year before Neil Armstrong actually did it.
Now that might seem silly if you weren't a technologically minded teenager at the time but I had the good fortune to be just that and the way I remember it is that we seemed to be saturated with NASA. This wasn't all that much after the first international TV links were established and it was still quite the novelty to see footage, today, of something that had happened on the other side of the world on that very same day.
There was also a surfeit (in the pre-google age) of information relating to the Apollo program. I lapped it all up. Damned if I can remember the numbers anymore but at that time I could have recited the escape velocities of all the inner planets and the moon!
I still vividly remember riding my bike up Mulhall Drive, St Albans, just at sunset in December 1968 and looking up at the moon; knowing that the first manned orbit was happening. I think that was Apollo 8 (Wikipedia confirms that it was).
So I walked out of that first viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey mightily puzzled yet elated. It was probably the most exciting movie I'd seen up until then and there have been very few more exciting since! Indeed, I suspect that the movie also got me interested in classical music; certainly I remember buying the introduction to 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' on a single the same year. Came as quite a suprise when I heard the entire work; the bit we all know even if we don't know we know it runs for all of two and a half minutes out of a total of forty minutes!
Did I enjoy 2010? You guessed that from my opening line 'the movie it pretends to be a sequel to' that I didn't much. Too much of a contrast with 2001. In the first nothing is explained; we're expected to make up our own minds. In the later movie too damn much is explained. Did I really need to know that HAL did what he did because he was forced to lie?
And that 'something wonderful is going to happen?'. Give me a break.
So no, I still don't think I know what 2001: A Space Odyssey is 'about'. And I'm perfectly happy with that. I'll treasure the memory of arguing with friends about whether this or that detail was 'correct' (the orange juice in the straw was my favourite - we never could decide whether air pressure was an adequate explanation for it's motion once Heywood Floyd stopped sucking).
And I'm quite sure the next time I play the movie I'll enjoy it just as much as I always have!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Flyboys
My wife and I did something we rarely do together and after tonight I can see why. Our tastes in films are wildly different but sometimes one gives.
Thus tonights movie, Flyboys[^]. Quite possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I don't say that lightly, not when one considers Steven Spielbergs ouvre! By the time we reached the fourth or fifth false climax (the one where the zeppelin is flying toward Paris) I was beginning to believe the movie would *never* end.
But, as I said when it was finally over, 'you know, I need to see a movie like that every so often; it makes me realise just how good the movies were fifty years ago'.
And on that note I finished the evening with this[^]. Really, it surprises me we're still married!
Thus tonights movie, Flyboys[^]. Quite possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen and I don't say that lightly, not when one considers Steven Spielbergs ouvre! By the time we reached the fourth or fifth false climax (the one where the zeppelin is flying toward Paris) I was beginning to believe the movie would *never* end.
But, as I said when it was finally over, 'you know, I need to see a movie like that every so often; it makes me realise just how good the movies were fifty years ago'.
And on that note I finished the evening with this[^]. Really, it surprises me we're still married!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Noice
With a mere 22 days before Heino arrives I had the pleasure of finding a package waiting from him when I got home. He'd hinted it was on the way and, knowing that it was a DVD, I'd already asked my wife to check the mail daily; I suspect that this run of warm days would not do a DVD any good whatsoever.
Now you might wonder why I asked my wife to check the mail. Why can't I check it myself? Well, I can, but we have only one key to the mailbox and, since we live in a condo block and the mailbox is a quarter of a mile away, it can be inconvenient. And why do we have only one key to the mailbox? The key is stamped 'do not duplicate' and when I suggested to Sonya that it might be an idea for me to have a copy she said 'but we can't copy it!'. This from the woman who has no problem whatsoever ripping the labels off mattresses[^]!
I hope any Australian readers have already twigged as to what the DVD was; the title of the post should have given it away. It was a copy of the promotional DVD for the new series of Kath & Kim[^] given away with (I presume) the Saturday Age a couple of weeks ago.
I've just had an evening of pigging out on K&K - started with the new DVD and, those bones picked clean, I watched the entire third series again. Alas, I'll have to wait until the DVD release to see the fourth series, currently running in Australia.
And, quelle horreur (hope I spelled that right), check this[^] out. With all due respect to my new country, what are they thinking??? How will they translate, if they even try, my favourite line from the first episode 'up at the crack of sparrows'! That line perfectly captures the essence of the show. Mrs Malaprope couldn't have put it better!
The impending cultural massacre aside (and yes, I will check it out if only to enjoy a good cringe, should it actually make it out of planning and into reality) I had an immensely enjoyable evening. Thanks mate!
Now you might wonder why I asked my wife to check the mail. Why can't I check it myself? Well, I can, but we have only one key to the mailbox and, since we live in a condo block and the mailbox is a quarter of a mile away, it can be inconvenient. And why do we have only one key to the mailbox? The key is stamped 'do not duplicate' and when I suggested to Sonya that it might be an idea for me to have a copy she said 'but we can't copy it!'. This from the woman who has no problem whatsoever ripping the labels off mattresses[^]!
I hope any Australian readers have already twigged as to what the DVD was; the title of the post should have given it away. It was a copy of the promotional DVD for the new series of Kath & Kim[^] given away with (I presume) the Saturday Age a couple of weeks ago.
I've just had an evening of pigging out on K&K - started with the new DVD and, those bones picked clean, I watched the entire third series again. Alas, I'll have to wait until the DVD release to see the fourth series, currently running in Australia.
And, quelle horreur (hope I spelled that right), check this[^] out. With all due respect to my new country, what are they thinking??? How will they translate, if they even try, my favourite line from the first episode 'up at the crack of sparrows'! That line perfectly captures the essence of the show. Mrs Malaprope couldn't have put it better!
The impending cultural massacre aside (and yes, I will check it out if only to enjoy a good cringe, should it actually make it out of planning and into reality) I had an immensely enjoyable evening. Thanks mate!
Saturday, July 21, 2007
It's almost over
The whole sorry Harry Potter saga that is. Yeah I know, I'm probably the only person in the western world who isn't dizzy with joy at the prospect of getting my grubby fingers on another volume.
I did try. When ones girlfriend of the time insists that it's a good read one lacks the moral courage to say no. Thus to a week of forcing myself to read about muggles and wizards and platform 8¾. There, you see, I have a vague aquaintance with the subject.
Unfortunately I found it all so damn arbitrary. Take that platform 8¾ for example. It just is with no narrative justification whatsoever. At least, in Being John Malkovich[^] they came up with a good reason for floor 6½.
The films were worse. I suffered through the first two. Yeah, John Cleese was excellent as Basil Fawlty but as a disembodied head floating around greeting schoolchildren he was just painful to behold. I reckon he must have needed the money. That or his agent insisted for the 'exposure'. On the other hand, the first film was worthwhile just for Zoe Wanamaker!
So I'm a curmudgeon on the subject of Harry Potter.
Thus came friday night, July 20 2007. Did America remember one of its greater achievements on this the 38th anniversary? Heck no. It queued up outside bookshops waiting for midnight so it could get a copy of the seventh volume. Sonya dutifully lined up at Frys supermarket, waiting for the fateful hour. Triumphantly she bore her copy of the volume home, and went straight to bed! It was, after all, an hour and a half after her usual bed time.
I did try. When ones girlfriend of the time insists that it's a good read one lacks the moral courage to say no. Thus to a week of forcing myself to read about muggles and wizards and platform 8¾. There, you see, I have a vague aquaintance with the subject.
Unfortunately I found it all so damn arbitrary. Take that platform 8¾ for example. It just is with no narrative justification whatsoever. At least, in Being John Malkovich[^] they came up with a good reason for floor 6½.
The films were worse. I suffered through the first two. Yeah, John Cleese was excellent as Basil Fawlty but as a disembodied head floating around greeting schoolchildren he was just painful to behold. I reckon he must have needed the money. That or his agent insisted for the 'exposure'. On the other hand, the first film was worthwhile just for Zoe Wanamaker!
So I'm a curmudgeon on the subject of Harry Potter.
Thus came friday night, July 20 2007. Did America remember one of its greater achievements on this the 38th anniversary? Heck no. It queued up outside bookshops waiting for midnight so it could get a copy of the seventh volume. Sonya dutifully lined up at Frys supermarket, waiting for the fateful hour. Triumphantly she bore her copy of the volume home, and went straight to bed! It was, after all, an hour and a half after her usual bed time.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Knucklehead Productions
delivered their latest DVD today, all the way from Australia. 'Hank' Heino (if he can call me Chip then I can call him Hank!) directed but I notice the stars, his youngest daughter and a friend, got the Executive Producer credits.
Great art it ain't but it was certainly fun to watch. I laughed at the friend playing the part of local fireman and hiding behind a moustache that looked large enough to serve dual duty as a toilet brush! The cop trying to keep a straight face was also fun.
But the biggest laugh was at the pretentious Knucklehead Productions logo at the end! :-)
The goofs were fun too; Hank always does those well and he has the ability not to get over-indulgent with them.
Hank, was that the missus in the dark jacket waving her arms and facing the camera during the earthquake scene you shot outside the house? :-)
Great art it ain't but it was certainly fun to watch. I laughed at the friend playing the part of local fireman and hiding behind a moustache that looked large enough to serve dual duty as a toilet brush! The cop trying to keep a straight face was also fun.
But the biggest laugh was at the pretentious Knucklehead Productions logo at the end! :-)
The goofs were fun too; Hank always does those well and he has the ability not to get over-indulgent with them.
Hank, was that the missus in the dark jacket waving her arms and facing the camera during the earthquake scene you shot outside the house? :-)
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Another anachronism
Actually I'm not sure 'anachronism' is the right word but I can't think what the correct word is. For this isn't about something appearing in the wrong time but rather about something appearing in the wrong location.
I've just been watching Winchester 73[^]. Great film and the first time I've seen it. I've always liked James Stewart[^] in movies made from about 1947 onward; his earlier stuff with Frank Capra[^] leaves me cold but from about Call Northside 777[^] onwards he was good. In Rear Window[^] and Vertigo[^] he was great.
Truth to tell I've tended over the past 30 years to avoid Westerns. I had the usual childhood fascination with Westerns to be sure and I always hated it when I was chosen to be an 'injun' in the playground. Much more fun to be a cowboy and get to win (as the cowboys invariably did). Not much glory in having a tyke point his finger at you, shout 'bang bang, you're dead' and feeling obliged to fall to the ground!
With a background like that the Western started to feel like a thing of one's childhood, to be put away in adulthood and perhaps remembered indulgently.
Absolute bullshit of course! The first cracks in that theory came from seeing The Ox-Bow Incident[^].
Even so, it took me a long time to come around to the genre. I still avoid John Wayne[^] like the plague though that probably has more to do with his politics than anything else.
Moving to the Southwest USA helped rekindle my interest in Westerns. It's amazing how many Westerns have been shot here in Arizona. The second full weekend here after I moved we, Sonya and I, set off for a short tour of Southern Arizona, through Tucson to Tombstone[^], thence to Bisbee and a drive along the US Mexico Border. I don't think there's anyone in the English speaking world who hasn't heard of Tombstone Arizona (and many in the non English speaking world will also have heard of it).
Having been to Tombstone I always get a chuckle when I see the 'classics' supposedly shot there but showing Monument Valley[^].
So to tonights movie. The action commences in Dodge City, Kansas[^] on the centenary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4 1876. The action moves (in a matter of days) to Texas which, even in 1876, would have been possible. Some more action and a couple more days pass and suddenly we're into Saguaro[^] country! Somehow or other the characters have managed, on horseback, to cross the entirety of New Mexico and found themselves in Maricopa County!
It sure looked like this movie was shot in The Valley of the Sun[^]!
I've become a Phoenix boy! Not sure if that's a good thing or not :-)
I've just been watching Winchester 73[^]. Great film and the first time I've seen it. I've always liked James Stewart[^] in movies made from about 1947 onward; his earlier stuff with Frank Capra[^] leaves me cold but from about Call Northside 777[^] onwards he was good. In Rear Window[^] and Vertigo[^] he was great.
Truth to tell I've tended over the past 30 years to avoid Westerns. I had the usual childhood fascination with Westerns to be sure and I always hated it when I was chosen to be an 'injun' in the playground. Much more fun to be a cowboy and get to win (as the cowboys invariably did). Not much glory in having a tyke point his finger at you, shout 'bang bang, you're dead' and feeling obliged to fall to the ground!
With a background like that the Western started to feel like a thing of one's childhood, to be put away in adulthood and perhaps remembered indulgently.
Absolute bullshit of course! The first cracks in that theory came from seeing The Ox-Bow Incident[^].
Even so, it took me a long time to come around to the genre. I still avoid John Wayne[^] like the plague though that probably has more to do with his politics than anything else.
Moving to the Southwest USA helped rekindle my interest in Westerns. It's amazing how many Westerns have been shot here in Arizona. The second full weekend here after I moved we, Sonya and I, set off for a short tour of Southern Arizona, through Tucson to Tombstone[^], thence to Bisbee and a drive along the US Mexico Border. I don't think there's anyone in the English speaking world who hasn't heard of Tombstone Arizona (and many in the non English speaking world will also have heard of it).
Having been to Tombstone I always get a chuckle when I see the 'classics' supposedly shot there but showing Monument Valley[^].
So to tonights movie. The action commences in Dodge City, Kansas[^] on the centenary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4 1876. The action moves (in a matter of days) to Texas which, even in 1876, would have been possible. Some more action and a couple more days pass and suddenly we're into Saguaro[^] country! Somehow or other the characters have managed, on horseback, to cross the entirety of New Mexico and found themselves in Maricopa County!
It sure looked like this movie was shot in The Valley of the Sun[^]!
I've become a Phoenix boy! Not sure if that's a good thing or not :-)
Thursday, August 24, 2006
I knew they'd call em biscuits somewhere
You know about biscuits versus cookies right?
I understand we have the Dutch immigrants on the US east coast to thank for the word 'cookies' being used to refer to sweetened baked thingies that are harder than bread but not quite hard enough to break your teeth.
If Americans use the word cookies for that comestible it leaves the word biscuit free for other uses. Thus the thing that elsewhere might be called a scone is a biscuit here. Most confusing first time around.
Let's not even consider crackers!
Being a bit of a stirrer (who me?? Never!) I make much of the nomenclature difference. I'll never use the word biscuit in the correct context. If Andrew wants to eat Oreos fine but I insist on calling them Oreo 'Biscuits'. And when Sonya serves beef stew accompanied by 'biscuits' I insist on calling them scones (especially when they're delicious with honey). My long suffering American family are used to me being 'difficult' about certain words and I'm sure that even Andrew has finally learned how to apply context to what I say.
Of course my stubbornness is matched by theirs. If I, an Australian, insist on calling a cookie a biscuit they, as Americans, insist on calling it a cookie. Which is as it should be. I'm hanging onto my culture; they're hanging onto theirs!
Tonight I watched Cause for Alarm[^]. Certainly not a great film but not all that bad either. It wouldn't rate much of a mention were it not for the scene where the little boy from up the street appears and asks for cookies. Loretta Young obliges him and we're treated to a close up of the packaging as he reaches in. And there, in glorious black and white is the label 'Assorted Biscuits!'.
Ah ha!! Gotcha!!!
Nothing would do but that I call Sonya up to see the scene. 'See? I knew that someone somewhere on this continent would call em biscuits!'.
It's the small victories! :-)
I understand we have the Dutch immigrants on the US east coast to thank for the word 'cookies' being used to refer to sweetened baked thingies that are harder than bread but not quite hard enough to break your teeth.
If Americans use the word cookies for that comestible it leaves the word biscuit free for other uses. Thus the thing that elsewhere might be called a scone is a biscuit here. Most confusing first time around.
Let's not even consider crackers!
Being a bit of a stirrer (who me?? Never!) I make much of the nomenclature difference. I'll never use the word biscuit in the correct context. If Andrew wants to eat Oreos fine but I insist on calling them Oreo 'Biscuits'. And when Sonya serves beef stew accompanied by 'biscuits' I insist on calling them scones (especially when they're delicious with honey). My long suffering American family are used to me being 'difficult' about certain words and I'm sure that even Andrew has finally learned how to apply context to what I say.
Of course my stubbornness is matched by theirs. If I, an Australian, insist on calling a cookie a biscuit they, as Americans, insist on calling it a cookie. Which is as it should be. I'm hanging onto my culture; they're hanging onto theirs!
Tonight I watched Cause for Alarm[^]. Certainly not a great film but not all that bad either. It wouldn't rate much of a mention were it not for the scene where the little boy from up the street appears and asks for cookies. Loretta Young obliges him and we're treated to a close up of the packaging as he reaches in. And there, in glorious black and white is the label 'Assorted Biscuits!'.
Ah ha!! Gotcha!!!
Nothing would do but that I call Sonya up to see the scene. 'See? I knew that someone somewhere on this continent would call em biscuits!'.
It's the small victories! :-)
Monday, August 21, 2006
Flight 93
the film[^] cropped up on A&E last night. Arts and Entertainment? You have to understand that even after 52 years on this planet I still expect descriptions to match reality. I wouldn't think a film about September 11 2001 would fit either the Arts or the Entertainment description.
You'll note that the link calls the film United 93 but it was called Flight 93 on the TV broadcast.
As a movie it wasn't as hard to watch as I'd expected. I think I've become inured to fictional depictions of swarthy hijackers attacking All American boys.
I think I react to this movie in a different way than an American would. The imminence of my becoming a US citizen notwithstanding there are some gaps that are unbridgeable and I fear I will never react to some things in quite the same way that a native born citizen would. Perhaps that's another way of saying that citizenship or not I'll never be a true American. There'll always be those 48 years living in Australia to remind me that I'm still a Stranger in a Strange Land.
I have to agree with Laura[^] (Laura, you really have to change your setting for comments - it's bloody hard to isolate the page link :-) ) that, as a movie, it was somewhat pointless. It's not as though we don't already know the official story.
Indeed, when I mentioned to Sonya that I had the movie on the HTPC and asked if she wanted to see it before I erased it she made the comment 'I don't like watching movies when I know the end; and especially not when it's such a bummer of an ending'. Well, that's one view from an American though I note that she thinks The Lion King[^] is a great movie so I reckon we've got her number! :-)
What we got was the usual bad guys and heroics. I did find it interesting that the hijackers were portrayed tying red ribbons around their heads in a manner reminiscent of the way Ken Ogata[^] did in the lead up to his Hari Kari scene in Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters[^]. Pure fantasy of course; I've seen no reference to red headbands in the popular media and we really don't know what took place on that plane that day.
In what I take to be a repudiation of the current US administrations invasion of Iraq the most famous line is understated. If you believe the Bush administrations portrayal Todd Beamer[^] ran toward the cockpit shouting 'Let's roll!!!!'. In the movie it's almost whispered by a man who finds himself in a situation from which he cannot escape.
I can relate to the movie portrayal much more easily than I can to the administrations portrayal.
You'll note that the link calls the film United 93 but it was called Flight 93 on the TV broadcast.
As a movie it wasn't as hard to watch as I'd expected. I think I've become inured to fictional depictions of swarthy hijackers attacking All American boys.
I think I react to this movie in a different way than an American would. The imminence of my becoming a US citizen notwithstanding there are some gaps that are unbridgeable and I fear I will never react to some things in quite the same way that a native born citizen would. Perhaps that's another way of saying that citizenship or not I'll never be a true American. There'll always be those 48 years living in Australia to remind me that I'm still a Stranger in a Strange Land.
I have to agree with Laura[^] (Laura, you really have to change your setting for comments - it's bloody hard to isolate the page link :-) ) that, as a movie, it was somewhat pointless. It's not as though we don't already know the official story.
Indeed, when I mentioned to Sonya that I had the movie on the HTPC and asked if she wanted to see it before I erased it she made the comment 'I don't like watching movies when I know the end; and especially not when it's such a bummer of an ending'. Well, that's one view from an American though I note that she thinks The Lion King[^] is a great movie so I reckon we've got her number! :-)
What we got was the usual bad guys and heroics. I did find it interesting that the hijackers were portrayed tying red ribbons around their heads in a manner reminiscent of the way Ken Ogata[^] did in the lead up to his Hari Kari scene in Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters[^]. Pure fantasy of course; I've seen no reference to red headbands in the popular media and we really don't know what took place on that plane that day.
In what I take to be a repudiation of the current US administrations invasion of Iraq the most famous line is understated. If you believe the Bush administrations portrayal Todd Beamer[^] ran toward the cockpit shouting 'Let's roll!!!!'. In the movie it's almost whispered by a man who finds himself in a situation from which he cannot escape.
I can relate to the movie portrayal much more easily than I can to the administrations portrayal.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Old movies
In addition to obsessing about getting the metadata tags right in my music collection much of my time recently has been spent watching late 1940's and early 1950's film noir. Like that'd be a surprise given recent postings. These movies are even older than I am (though only just!).
As much as I can enjoy a Humphrey Bogart or a James Cagney film I reckon the more obscure titles from those ten or twelve years are 'better'. Better in the sense that, for the most part, they're better written than the 'star' vehicles, better performances, better lighting. Without the distraction of the studio image builders it feels as though everyone involved was concentrating on making movies.
I particularly enjoy the movies made by RKO Radio Pictures. Titles such as The Narrow Margin[^] and The Setup[^]. I sometimes find myself wondering if my father had seen these movies. Odds are that he did; they'd have been supporting features throughout the 1950's.
As much as I can enjoy a Humphrey Bogart or a James Cagney film I reckon the more obscure titles from those ten or twelve years are 'better'. Better in the sense that, for the most part, they're better written than the 'star' vehicles, better performances, better lighting. Without the distraction of the studio image builders it feels as though everyone involved was concentrating on making movies.
I particularly enjoy the movies made by RKO Radio Pictures. Titles such as The Narrow Margin[^] and The Setup[^]. I sometimes find myself wondering if my father had seen these movies. Odds are that he did; they'd have been supporting features throughout the 1950's.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The blue gardenia
If you're not familiar with the world of classical music it's easy enough to imagine that much of the music used by Hollywood, particularly in days long gone by, is from that world. I certainly did up until about 1975. The fact that I'd been listening to classical music from about 1970 and still thought that merely indicates that I'm slow on the uptake and that I was still learning.
The problem is that a piece of music written as a stand alone composition rarely fits the action. Music has its own momentum as does film and trying to make the one fit the other only works if the one is tailored to the others rhythms.
Hence the existence of large multi CD libraries of 30 second or less 'stings'. When we were making our movie in 1990/1991 I was still vainly trying to think of ways to make the music I knew so well fit in the edit suite. An impossible task.
Thus it's a pleasure when someone manages to pull it off. Fritz Lang did in this[^] movie.
Considerably simplified, the story concerns a girl who, whilst drunk, fights off an unwanted advance by a bloke and thinks, the next day, that she killed him. Her last memory of the event is Nat King Cole singing a song 'The Blue Gardenia'.
We, the audience are treated to the sight of George Reeves (of TV Superman fame) the next morning listening, in the fatal apartment, to an entirely different record. Nothing less than the Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde[^]!
Things for the girl go from bad to worse and the police are sure they have their villain. Until the newspaper guy remembers that she said she heard Nat King Cole and yet they found Wagner on the turntable! Thus follows some wierd stuff including a glimpse of a face we saw in the first 3 minutes of the movie and have totally forgotten; snap of the fingers and it all wraps up and the girl is innocent.
It was a pleasure not only to hear something I know so well as part of the story; it was also a pleasure the way that the music became integrated into the general soundtrack toward the end. Hey, I'm easily pleased!
The problem is that a piece of music written as a stand alone composition rarely fits the action. Music has its own momentum as does film and trying to make the one fit the other only works if the one is tailored to the others rhythms.
Hence the existence of large multi CD libraries of 30 second or less 'stings'. When we were making our movie in 1990/1991 I was still vainly trying to think of ways to make the music I knew so well fit in the edit suite. An impossible task.
Thus it's a pleasure when someone manages to pull it off. Fritz Lang did in this[^] movie.
Considerably simplified, the story concerns a girl who, whilst drunk, fights off an unwanted advance by a bloke and thinks, the next day, that she killed him. Her last memory of the event is Nat King Cole singing a song 'The Blue Gardenia'.
We, the audience are treated to the sight of George Reeves (of TV Superman fame) the next morning listening, in the fatal apartment, to an entirely different record. Nothing less than the Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde[^]!
Things for the girl go from bad to worse and the police are sure they have their villain. Until the newspaper guy remembers that she said she heard Nat King Cole and yet they found Wagner on the turntable! Thus follows some wierd stuff including a glimpse of a face we saw in the first 3 minutes of the movie and have totally forgotten; snap of the fingers and it all wraps up and the girl is innocent.
It was a pleasure not only to hear something I know so well as part of the story; it was also a pleasure the way that the music became integrated into the general soundtrack toward the end. Hey, I'm easily pleased!
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
The chewing gum scene
In our movie[^] we had a scene where Scarless (me) has vegemite on his hand. For the purpose of the script it was soot but we used vegemite for no better reason than we could.
The mechanics of the scene were simple; my sidekick and I are in the forensic lab with the Professor and his sidekick. We shake hands.
'Scarless, Professor' (Professor and I shake hands).
'Scarless, Beaker' (Beaker and I shake hands).
'Professor, Festering Wound' (The Professor and Festering Wound shake hands).
'Festering Wound, Beaker' (Festering Wound and Beaker shake hands).
You, the audience, are supposed to have seen that I start the scene with vegemite on my hand, it's transferred to the Professors hand, thence to Festering Wounds and finally to Beaker.
We stole the idea shamelessly from this movie[^] which, it should come as no surprise whatsoever, I watched tonight. First time I've seen it in probably 20 years which doubtless explains why it was that I could not, for the life of me, remember the movie from which we'd stolen the scene.
The source movie does it rather better than we did but then again, we condensed a five minute segment into somewhat less than a minute. In the source the 'heroine' takes her chewing gum out of her mouth and sticks it under a table in a cafe (disgusting habit). Then we get to see that chewing gum do the rounds of at least a dozen sets of fingers before it returns to under the table.
Of course, as the gang leave the cafe she reaches under the table to retrieve the gum and..... but no, if you want to know the punchline see the movie! :-)
The mechanics of the scene were simple; my sidekick and I are in the forensic lab with the Professor and his sidekick. We shake hands.
'Scarless, Professor' (Professor and I shake hands).
'Scarless, Beaker' (Beaker and I shake hands).
'Professor, Festering Wound' (The Professor and Festering Wound shake hands).
'Festering Wound, Beaker' (Festering Wound and Beaker shake hands).
You, the audience, are supposed to have seen that I start the scene with vegemite on my hand, it's transferred to the Professors hand, thence to Festering Wounds and finally to Beaker.
We stole the idea shamelessly from this movie[^] which, it should come as no surprise whatsoever, I watched tonight. First time I've seen it in probably 20 years which doubtless explains why it was that I could not, for the life of me, remember the movie from which we'd stolen the scene.
The source movie does it rather better than we did but then again, we condensed a five minute segment into somewhat less than a minute. In the source the 'heroine' takes her chewing gum out of her mouth and sticks it under a table in a cafe (disgusting habit). Then we get to see that chewing gum do the rounds of at least a dozen sets of fingers before it returns to under the table.
Of course, as the gang leave the cafe she reaches under the table to retrieve the gum and..... but no, if you want to know the punchline see the movie! :-)
Monday, July 17, 2006
Gotta love the odd anachronism
A lazy sunday afternoon spent alternating between watching movies and napping. Dunno why but I seem to take a lot more short naps these days than I used to. Probably compensation for getting less than 6 hours sleep a night on average.
On the other hand, split sleep is nothing new to me; I used, back in 1976, to sleep for three or so hours in the early evening so I could be awake for the late night movies[^]. Back then I had the excuse that the technology to record the stuff was prohibitively expensive.
One of tonights movies was The Great Garrick[^]. A better movie than the precis would indicate but not great by any means. I note that one of the peripheral but still important to the plot actors was born in 1856! Man, that's a long time ago, even for me!
I have to admit that Hollywood did try. The movie is set in France in about the year 1750. Someone on the staff somewhere must have pointed out that in France they measure distance by the metric system, for there in closeup early in the movie is a sign pointing to Paris, 160 KM. Full points for trying but a deduction for not realising that in 1750 the metric system was still about half a century into the future. Uh huh, a Napoleonic era invention.
The other anachronism is a trifle more subtle. There's music in the soundtrack and music 'in' the action. I can go with the incidental music being of the wrong era but when the orchestra strikes up a tune to accompany David Garrick onto the stage and it's obvious that a 1750 orchestra is playing music that could not have been written earlier than 1800 I have to smile.
I enjoyed the movie. I'll probably watch it again sometime.
On the other hand, split sleep is nothing new to me; I used, back in 1976, to sleep for three or so hours in the early evening so I could be awake for the late night movies[^]. Back then I had the excuse that the technology to record the stuff was prohibitively expensive.
One of tonights movies was The Great Garrick[^]. A better movie than the precis would indicate but not great by any means. I note that one of the peripheral but still important to the plot actors was born in 1856! Man, that's a long time ago, even for me!
I have to admit that Hollywood did try. The movie is set in France in about the year 1750. Someone on the staff somewhere must have pointed out that in France they measure distance by the metric system, for there in closeup early in the movie is a sign pointing to Paris, 160 KM. Full points for trying but a deduction for not realising that in 1750 the metric system was still about half a century into the future. Uh huh, a Napoleonic era invention.
The other anachronism is a trifle more subtle. There's music in the soundtrack and music 'in' the action. I can go with the incidental music being of the wrong era but when the orchestra strikes up a tune to accompany David Garrick onto the stage and it's obvious that a 1750 orchestra is playing music that could not have been written earlier than 1800 I have to smile.
I enjoyed the movie. I'll probably watch it again sometime.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Lost in translation
I've just been watching, for the umpteenth time, Ivan The Terrible, Part 1[^]. Excellent movie; I've been watching it ever since I first recorded it on Beta way back in 1983. I almost wore that tape out over 19 years until I discovered the DVD (yeah, I was as slow discovering DVD's as I was digital music).
The 1983 copy had subtitles created in house by SBS[^]. The DVD copy, released by Criterion[^] has, of course, a different translation. For the most part they're pretty much the same and these days, with neither the Beta tape nor the ability to play it back I'd be hard pressed to point to most phrases in the subtitles and say with any certainty that it differed from the one I used to see.
All but one that is. During the wedding early in the movie the guests frequently yell a word which is, as far as I can tell, 'boite' (sp)? The DVD translates this as 'kiss' in the imperative and Tsar Ivan and his bride Anastasia oblige by kissing.
The SBS translation had a much more puzzling but ultimately more satisfying translation. They translated it as 'the wine is bitter'. Had me scratching my head a bit until I found a friend with an eastern European background who was able to explain that they'd abbreviated it a trifle; what the guests were yelling was 'the wine is bitter; sweeten it with a kiss'. Aha, that made much more sense.
Somehow I like the SBS translation a lot more despite the initial puzzlement. You have no idea how tempted I was to yell it at Shelbys wedding last week; but no one else would have understood and one does not spoil another persons wedding.
The 1983 copy had subtitles created in house by SBS[^]. The DVD copy, released by Criterion[^] has, of course, a different translation. For the most part they're pretty much the same and these days, with neither the Beta tape nor the ability to play it back I'd be hard pressed to point to most phrases in the subtitles and say with any certainty that it differed from the one I used to see.
All but one that is. During the wedding early in the movie the guests frequently yell a word which is, as far as I can tell, 'boite' (sp)? The DVD translates this as 'kiss' in the imperative and Tsar Ivan and his bride Anastasia oblige by kissing.
The SBS translation had a much more puzzling but ultimately more satisfying translation. They translated it as 'the wine is bitter'. Had me scratching my head a bit until I found a friend with an eastern European background who was able to explain that they'd abbreviated it a trifle; what the guests were yelling was 'the wine is bitter; sweeten it with a kiss'. Aha, that made much more sense.
Somehow I like the SBS translation a lot more despite the initial puzzlement. You have no idea how tempted I was to yell it at Shelbys wedding last week; but no one else would have understood and one does not spoil another persons wedding.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Approaching something with low expectations
or perhaps more accurately, approaching something having already judged it. Or perhaps even more accurately, approaching with a closed mind?
Uh huh. I watched about a third of the Hollywood version of The Singing Detective[^] tonight.
I wouldn't dignify it with the term 'remake'; that would imply at least a half hearted reverence for the source material[^].
I'm sure the people who were responsible for this mess of a movie thought they were doing something worthwhile. The movie even stuck, for the length that I could endure, reasonably close to the original story though there were gratuitous changes to dialog.
As an example; in the original the 'hero' hallucinates. At a bedside medical conference the next morning the head nurse relates that 'yesterday he thought there was a cat in the bed nibbling at his toes'. The Hollywood version changes the line to 'yesterday he thought there was a dog on the bed chewing his ankle'. He weakly protests that it was chewing his toes.
Why on earth would anyone have thought it necessary to change the imaginary animal from a cat into a dog? Perhaps because the British are reputed to be cat lovers whilst everyone knows that all red-blooded American males love their dogs?
To be honest, I have a real problem with the whole 'remake' thing. It bespeaks a lack of imagination and respect for the work of others. Would anyone set out to rewrite Hemingway or Dickens or Austen with any expectation of critical acceptance? To be sure, they may rework the same material in a different way but almost any attempt to reproduce any well known authors work would be dismissed as plagiarism. Why should a movie maker think s/he could get away with the film equivalent?
*shrug*
I endured about 25 minutes of the movie before hitting the delete button. Married with Children seemed quite refreshingly original as a follow on...
Uh huh. I watched about a third of the Hollywood version of The Singing Detective[^] tonight.
I wouldn't dignify it with the term 'remake'; that would imply at least a half hearted reverence for the source material[^].
I'm sure the people who were responsible for this mess of a movie thought they were doing something worthwhile. The movie even stuck, for the length that I could endure, reasonably close to the original story though there were gratuitous changes to dialog.
As an example; in the original the 'hero' hallucinates. At a bedside medical conference the next morning the head nurse relates that 'yesterday he thought there was a cat in the bed nibbling at his toes'. The Hollywood version changes the line to 'yesterday he thought there was a dog on the bed chewing his ankle'. He weakly protests that it was chewing his toes.
Why on earth would anyone have thought it necessary to change the imaginary animal from a cat into a dog? Perhaps because the British are reputed to be cat lovers whilst everyone knows that all red-blooded American males love their dogs?
To be honest, I have a real problem with the whole 'remake' thing. It bespeaks a lack of imagination and respect for the work of others. Would anyone set out to rewrite Hemingway or Dickens or Austen with any expectation of critical acceptance? To be sure, they may rework the same material in a different way but almost any attempt to reproduce any well known authors work would be dismissed as plagiarism. Why should a movie maker think s/he could get away with the film equivalent?
*shrug*
I endured about 25 minutes of the movie before hitting the delete button. Married with Children seemed quite refreshingly original as a follow on...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
