Hallo-Watch: Christine (1983)

Watched:  10/09/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  Third?  Fourth?

Director:  John Carpenter

This spooky season, I'm mostly trying to check off movies I should have already watched - also movies I haven't seen since I was a kid, so I don't remember the films well at all.  This isn't that - but Jamie had not seen Christine (1983), and I kind of consider it worth a viewing.  So it's her version of that, I suppose.

I read the Stephen King novel when I was in 6th grade.  But I didn't see the movie until some time later - maybe when I was fifteen.  I've seen it a couple of times since, including in a hotel room during a  conference over a decade ago.  It's a bizarre movie - how compelling should a movie about a haunted car be?  And yet.

Christine is a John Carpenter movie, and - I think - should be included in consideration of his run of solid work there in the 1980's.  I know Carpenter seems grumpy about all of the movies he did as a work-for-hire director, but the pairing of his sensibilities with King really does work.  I'd love to see someone re-do Christine without having to strip it down for a movie audience and make it as weird as the book, but as a movie - separate from the book but using the core of it - I think this movie works as a kind of horror, just not the horror of "oh no!  A car will get me!" that you might guess on first blush.

To me, the horror of the movie is not so much about a killer, possessed car - which, fair enough (that is a problem!).  Instead, it's about helplessly watching a friend go down due to a change in their life, be it addiction, a toxic partner, or some other obsession.  This is two lifelong pals who went two different directions, and one of them goes off the deep end, and the other has to deal with the fallout as that person hurts other people.  

Hallo-Watch: Phantasm (1979)

Watched:  10/08/2024

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Don Coscarelli

I didn't know anything about Phantasm (1979) coming in, despite the fact it's a horror staple and much beloved.  And that's a bit odd.  Generally you get the idea.  There's a chainsaw massacre in Texas.  A Freddy.  A Jason.  All I knew about this one was "there's a gangly older gentleman and a flying sphere with knives on it".  How those two things were employed, I could not guess.

Perhaps taking a page from the semi-psychedelic horror of the preceding decade and the impact of European horror making its way to the US - think Suspiria - it opened the doors for horror to show that part of horror could be the confusion of the audience - that the audience is also in a place of confusion, just as much as the protagonist, as the movie runs its course.

The approach gives the movie an odd, dreamy feeling - where the edges never quite match-up and attempts to force the narrative into a sensible pattern are a bit useless.  It's sort of about a teen/ tweenage boy who has lost his parents and whose older brother is now saddled with his care, just as the brother is set to go out into the world.  While the brother and his friends seek female companionship and go about the business of young adults, the younger brother, terrified of being alone, follows at a distance.  

It seems the mortuary in town (Dunsmuir House, famous from this, A View to a Kill, Burnt Offerings and other films...) is where a tall man and a bunch of cloaked dwarves live, and are maybe murdering people?  Or weirder?

They involve their friend, Reggie - an ice cream man with a terrible look - and try to unravel the mystery, especially as their parents were sent to the same mortuary, and as they discover what the mortuary is doing with the dead bodies... * they decide to take it all down, as one does.  Because this is a horror movie where the heroes are well armed, including the under-16 kid.

I was surprised how much of the dialog and reactions of the characters in the movie felt... natural.  Like, this isn't canned dialog or reactions to just push the movie along.  People do things that make sense in a movie that is defying sense and logic, and it really helps.  Like - if you're going to break into a place with potentially murderous beings - do bring a gun if you can get it.  Don't just go creeping around hoping for the best.  And, the kid is oddly sensible - they don't make him an idiot just because he's under 20 years old.

That said - I did spend the first hour of the film waiting for the plot to kick in before realizing what kind of movie I was watching,  when my brain said "oh... this is one of those movies".  And while I enjoyed it up to that point, once I realized "yeah, this thing is just not caring if there's any internal logic" it was even better.

I'm too old for this to be my favorite thing, but if I'd seen it as a kid or teen, I think I would have really dug it for going all-out to be a weird movie and not bother with any answers.  Scenes that don't go anywhere, characters who make no sense... it's all good in dream-land.  I don't know if I ever felt anything was scary beyond being frightened I had no idea what was happening, but it still had a nice creep-factor from the very start.

I was a bit surprised they wholesale stole the gom jabbar, and that the end of Nightmare on Elm Street is essentially the same as this movie.  But, whatevs.  

*turning them into slave dwarves?

Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985)

Watched:  10/07/2024

Format:  Midnight Pulp on Amazon

Viewing:  First?

Director:  Stuart Gordon

In my post on From Beyond, I said I'd previously seen Re-Animator (1985), but in watching this - I had not actually seen this movie.  I'm wondering if I inadvertently watched the sequel.  Or not enough of the movie to actually remember it.  We'll find out when I take in the sequel.

This movie is chaotic, gory, fun, and speaks volumes about someone's ability to convince actors to walk around naked.  It's funny, bizarre, and I dug it.

A brilliant young scientist loses his mentor in Switzerland, coming to ye olde Miskatonic Medical School where he moves in with nice-guy med student, Dan, who is sleeping with the dean's daughter (Barbara Crampton, natch).  Herbert, the brilliant fellow, has invented a formula for bringing dead bodies back to life - demonstrating with Dan's pet cat (who, Herbert likely killed himself).  Meanwhile, Dr. Hill (Bob Gale) has made his career by stealing Herbert's mentor's work, and Herbert publicly calls him on it.  

Soon, chaos ensues as they try out Herbert's formula down in the morgue, and then on someone they didn't intend to be a useful body.  

I dunno.  It's like trying to describe a riot in detail.  There's a lot going on.

Everyone gets their assignments.  Jeffrey Combs is great as Herbert, Bob Gale unhinged as Dr. Hill, Robert Sampson all in as Dean Halsey.  Crampton is lively as Megan Halsey.  

This movie is just crazy nonsense for 90 minutes, and I dug it.  I think as a kid this would have spooked the crap out of me.  As a jaded adult, I'm just sorta chuckling to myself about "wow, they're doing this" as Dr. Hill's decapitated body lugs around his head.  

I'm not sure there's a deeper meaning in the film than "whoops... do not reanimate the dead!" which - lesson learned, amigos!  But it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the general tone and can-do-horror spirit of the thing.

The FX aren't as cool as From Beyond, but for something done on a budget, they really knock it out of the park.  Maybe minus the cat puppet, which is just good stuff.

Hallo-Horror Watch: From Beyond (1986)

Watched:  10/05/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First (all the way through)

Director:  Stuart Gordon

Thanks to seeing half of this movie in the mid-1980's, in later years when it came up in classes, I'd already know what the Pineal Gland is.  And, probably, set all sorts of toggles in my head thanks to Barbara Crampton.

There's no era that doesn't have it's own flavors of horror, and 1980's horror is best remembered for Freddy, Jason, etc...  But out there, Stuart Gordon was making stuff like Re-Animator and busily creating wild, weird stuff that was based more on concepts like HP Lovecraft for a modern audience than stalking teenagers.  I wasn't much of a horror kid so much as I was interested in, like, The Wolfman.  And I know I watched this movie for a bit sometime in the 1980's - right up to the hospital sequence, I think - because I don't remember that or the ending.  So I'm calling this my first full viewing.

This is based on Lovecraft's work of the same name, so it's generally about being unsettling, deeply weird and... madness.  Gotta have some madness.

From Beyond (1986) is about a young scientist (Jeffrey Coombs) who is working with a strange but brilliant scientist, Dr. Edward Pretorious (Ted Sorel) - and they manage to basically match the vibrations of our plane with that of one we really shouldn't have ever seen, full of archaic creatures and strange monsters.  Something goes wrong, and the young scientist is accused of murdering Pretorius, but his story of alien creatures killing Pretorius better matches the evidence (a bloodless, decapitated body) than "he got him with an axe".  Psychiatrist Dr. McMichaels (Crampton) is brought in, and wants to see what the guy was up to, so she works with him under police guard (Ken Foree!) to re-do the experiment.

What Gordon thought the effects of the "field" generated by the device were is up to speculation.  For some reason it seems to make the young scientist kind of crazy and his pineal gland grows into a weird, prehensile thing I'm sure is supposed to be phallic.  Crampton's character becomes...  sexy.  And poor Ken Foree just gets bit by a jellyfish.

I shall spoil no further.

The movie is weirdly fun for what it is.  I assume it kind of freaked me out as a kid with its mix of body horror, madness, dash of sex, some S&M for no reason, and no clear heroes in the thing.  But knowing Lovecraft a bit now, this is a reasonable adaptation of his vibe.  The special FX, make-up, etc... are all very good, minus a shot or two.  So if you dig old school practical and optical FX, this is a good one.  And the ideas of the film are appropriately chilling, with an ending that feels right.

Anyway - it was kind of great to see this as an adult and with more of film, literary and life experience under my belt.   

Hallowatch: The 'Burbs (1989)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube (it's streaming free.  Go figure)

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Joe Dante

Selection:  Jamie

I saw this one in the theater back in the day, and then on VHS and cable after.  But it's been some time since I watched this movie.  And while I liked the movie, boy - does it land now in a different way after living on the same suburban street since 2006.  

My memory was correct that this movie was poorly received upon its release, and it's funny - I think it would do fairly well now with reviewers no longer cloistered in urban centers and insisting on certain lifestyles which would, frankly, make them miss the joke of the movie except as a faint echo of their streets as kids.  Criticism and reviews play an important role, but I think this is just one where the vibe of how the curators of public opinion missed the mark, and it's not a mistake the movie is well-remembered 35 years later.

The film isn't quite a horror film, it is a comedy - and the whole thing feels very Joe Dante.  There's a hyper-realism to the the suburban setting that keeps the movie with one foot firmly planted in realism (the world Carrie Fisher is trying to anchor) while nuttiness abounds.  And Tom Hanks is our POV into what it is to move back and forth between those worlds.

Kris Kristofferson Has Merged With The Infinite

The great Kris Kristofferson - actor, musician, bad-ass - has passed at 88.  

Hallowatch: The Midnight Hour (1985)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jack Bender

SimonUK has already delved into Halloween movies, and having had already seen everything over the years, he found an ABC TV movie from 1985.  That, in the spirit of 1980's, apparently originally aired the day after Halloween at the height of Reaganism (I did not like how TV was run in the 1980's).  

If I ever know The Midnight Hour (1985) existed - and it is likely that in 1985, I absolutely did not as I was watching mostly Mr. Ed and GI Joe - I have since forgotten it.  And I am pretty sure I would have remembered this.  

The basic idea is one that pops up from time-to-time, it's Halloween and someone unleashes dark magic along the way, meaning - in this movie - zombies, werewolves, vampires, etc...  appear in a Massachusetts town.  And, they sort of take over and turn folks into monsters along the way.  Minus one guy who looks a lot like John Hughes, but isn't him.

The movie has a weird clutch of actors you know or say "really?" about.  Kevin McCarthy and Dick Van Patten each show up for a few scenes as parents.  Levar Burton plays the 1980's staple of the guy who thinks "tonight, me and my lady will finally do it".  The lady is played by Shari Belafonte (daughter of Harry) is pretty good as his ladyfriend whose family is tied to witchcraft in the town going back 200 years.  Jonelle Allen, TV staple, plays her ancestor.  Peter Deluise is in it in a thankless role.  Kurtwood Smith gets two scenes as the town cop.  Cindy Morgan (RIP) plays the teacher who is... sleeping with Peter Deluise and shows off publicly?  The 1980's were wild.  This is a TV movie!

And Wolfman Jack, who never saw a gig he couldn't cash in on, is the DJ on the ever present local radio.  And, btw, the soundtrack on this is surprisingly solid, including Shari Belafonte trying to create a Halloween single called "Get Dead".  But otherwise, oldies hits popular in the 1980's.

The movie is *fun* rather than scary and has a storyline where I'm pretty sure our John Hughes stand-in/ hero bangs a ghost who looks like Betty Cooper.  Again, the 1980's were a different time.

What's curious is how much money it looks like this thing cost.  TV movies used to be fairly expensive affairs, and this is no exception.  It also is basically no better or worse than 80% of the movies people remember fondly from the 1980's, but for some reason, this thing has terrible reviews.  Probably because of the dance sequence and lack of visible boobs.  

It's fine.  I liked the light tone and the wistful approach taken to the romance storyline.  And that, basically, the townsfolk lose right up to the end, without even really knowing what's going on.  Also, it's free on YouTube and does nail the Halloween vibe.  A little spooky, a little horror-ish, a little silly, a little sexy... it's all in there.  Maybe not amazing, but it works.

Vax Watch: The Fall Guy - extended cut (2024)

Watched:  09/28/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  Second

Director:  David Leitch

Huh.

So, as Hannah Waddingham was in a thing, I watched The Fall Guy (2024) in the theater back this spring.  The movie was right in the middle of the curve for me.  It was funny-ish, had decent stunts - but was basically what I figured it might be.  It had a flimsy story to hang it all on.  I like Gosling, Blunt, Waddingham, Duke and Hsu.  I can give or take Aaron Taylor-Johnson (sorry, dude), but he's good in this!

On Friday at noon, I got my COVID-booster, and felt maybe a little funky on Friday night, and then fine most of Saturday - and then in the late afternoon the effects hit me like a ton of bricks.  Unable to take in new information as we headed into evening, I decided the only thing for it was to see some stunts and have some chuckles.  I put on the Extended Cut of The Fall Guy, now streaming on Peacock.  And - what do you know?  The movie was literally much better.  

It became pretty clear to me that the vibe director Leitch was going for had been cut down to smithereens in someone's drive to make this movie much shorter.  Suddenly, the plot of the movie felt like it gelled.  The characters aren't speaking in bullet points and a lot of the humor and meta-ness of the movie is restored.  Character-based gags make more sense, and because what was supposed to be there is there, things just work better.  We're not racing through the movie so we can get in another showing that day. Ie:  The pacing is, in my opinion, fixed.

In short - the theatrical cut was a hatchet job. and I cannot begin to guess how and why that happened the way it did.  

I don't know how often I'll put this movie back on, but it's a case-study in how editing impacts the intentions of a film.  Leitch clearly meant for people to really enjoy the goofy dialog, repeating gags, and character moments, and a lot of what gets restored is that stuff.  We still get the very cool "one shots" like the opening sequence with Gosling going from his trailer to the top of the elevator and falling (sorry for spoilers, but that's the first five minutes).  But what's going on with the plot really feels more solid this time - and I think we get some additional murders that weren't there in the theatrical.

Anyhow, if the movie wasn't for you the first time, sorry.  I don't think this will fix it.  I do think if you were kinda lukewarm on this, it turns it up a notch.  If you liked it (I did), huh.  You may like it more.

I like Waddingham in the giant glasses. Very cute.

Raimi Watch: Darkman (1990)

Watched:  09/27/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Sam Raimi

Darkman (1990) was released just days after I moved from Austin to North Houston.  I was 15.  I'd never heard of Sam Raimi or seen Evil Dead.  It was the end of the 1980's, when we had movie ratings, but nobody really cared about using them for keeping kids out - it was more of a promise of what a movie could contain.  R meant a chance for gore, violence and boobs.  Maybe a few F-bombs.  

Mostly, I was interested in what was sold as a superhero movie, of an all-new character who had an edge to him.  And then a very weird, very cool movie unspooled in front of me.  

Darkman was thus, I think, my introduction to Sam Raimi, Liam Neeson and Frances McDormand.*  My memory is that I thought the camera work and editing were insane, Neeson had fully thrown himself into the role - which seemed like a lot, and McDormand made for a great love interest as a brainier-than-average "the girl" role in one of these movies.   

Dame Maggie Smith Merges With The Infinite

Dame Maggie Smith, who was famous for so many reasons, all good!, has passed.  She was 89.

Smith managed the terrific feat of becoming more and more famous and iconic as she hit her later years, starring in international hits like Harry Potter and Downton Abbey.  But she also appeared in popular films like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel in the past 15 years, was in the mid-90's famed Richard III as the Duchess of York, in Hook as Granny Wendy and led the 1969 film The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie as the titular character.  

I saw her first in Clash of the Titans, because I was an 80's kid who liked monsters.  And I recall her in things later, like Gosford Park and A Room With a View, which is probably where my mind goes when I think of her.

She'll be missed, but, dang.  That's a legacy. 

90's Watch: Bowfinger (1999)

Watched:  09/21/2024

Format:  Max?  I don't know.

Viewing:  Third

Director:  Frank Oz

Selection:  Jamie

Two things to begin with:  (1) This movie doesn't get discussed enough.  It's really funny.  (2) I have zero idea why they didn't call this movie "Chubby Rain".  It's the funnier, better title.

There were a lot of movies about movie-making in the go-go 90's.  Indie filmmakers couldn't get enough of themselves in the 90's indie boom, and most of those movies were not good.  But at the end of the 1990's, Steve Martin and Frank Oz put together a genuinely funny movie about making movies and the people who scrape by at the bottom of the Hollywood machine of the day.  And while it's silly and I doubt has anything to do with reality, it's good stuff.

Bowfinger (1999) has a great cast, with Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy playing two roles, Terence Stamp, Heather Graham, Christine Baranski, Jamie Kennedy and a shockingly sober 1999 Robert Downey Jr.  I hope filming was as fun as it looks like it was, because it seems like everyone is just dicking around having a good time.  

Hamilton/ Ape Watch: King Kong Lives (1986)

Watched:  09/20/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing;  4th?

Director:  John Guillermin/ Charles McCracken

After watching Dante's Peak, I was wanting to see another Linda Hamilton film and talked Dug and K into watching King Kong Lives (1986), a move I am certain they regret.  

As a sort of low-level monster-kid of the 1980's, I was thrilled to get a chance to see a *new* King Kong movie, and so went to see the flick in the theater.  I loved the *idea* of King Kong, but had only seen pieces of the 1976 movie and none of the original.  But read a Kong book to two and had the basic idea down.  

And, this movie was part of my realization that not all movies are good.  Like, you go to the movies as a kid, and if you can follow the plot, it feels like a winner.*  But around this time, I was starting to understand not every movie is "good" or was made because it was a work of art.  And, right about the time I saw Kong and Lady Kong making goo-goo eyes at each other, I began realizing this movie was not destined to be the classic its predecessors had been.

JLC Watch: A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

Watched:  09/19/2024

Format:  AFS Cinema

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Charles Crichton

Simon and I decided to catch this one again at the cinema.  

I've always liked A Fish Called Wanda (1988), and while some items in the film aged poorly, it's still a very, very good comedy with some screwball bits that just kill.  I don't know how objective I am about the film as I saw it so young and, at the time, felt like I was watching something aimed, for once, at adults rather than an all-ages comedy, like I was used to.  I mean, this isn't far removed, chronologically, from the early Police Academy franchise, which is what an R-Rated comedy looked like in the US that I had previously been watching.

Yet, the film is intensely silly.  Everyone is firing on all cylinders, enough so that you can't single out anyone in the film, just your favorite bits or scenes.  The entire sequence in which Wanda sneaks into Archie's house to seduce him is *gold* and should be studied by academics. But it's not aimed at 13 year-olds.  The comedy comes from a different place that knows goofy, witty, sexy and fun without resorting to feeling like "insert funny sad trombone sound here" is appropriate.

Si and I saw the movie in a shockingly full theater for an 8:30 PM Thursday showing of a movie you can stream from your phone right now.  It was a mix of clear die-hards for the movie and people who'd never seen it, I'm guessing, from the gasps and laughing at surprise bits in the film.  And, all ages.  20-something hipsters and Grandmas who likely have seen it 25 times.

Was JLC a big reason why I came out to the theater for the movie?  You know that's the case.  But I had never seen the movie on the big screen, and or with a crowd, and it was a delight to do so.

Here's the Podcast from years ago when Jamie, Si and I talked about the film.

Noir/ Joan Watch: Female on the Beach (1955)

Watched:  09/18/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Joseph Pevney

Y'all know I'm all in for Joan Crawford, and I think Jamie's a fan, too.  So, we put this one on from Criterion.  

There have to be papers written about Joan in this era and who her movies were aimed at.  She'd been kicking around since the Silent Era, was a huge star for a spell in the 1930's, then lost her box office mojo and was declared "box office poison", then had a massive come back in the mid-1940's with Mildred Pierce (recommended).  She came back around aged 39 - something to cheer for.  And she really is great in that movie.  And then she enjoyed real work for some time - including into 1955, when this movie came out.

I am sure there was an audience that knew and loved her from their youth and identified with her as they aged.  Further, she kept managing to play the very-much-desired woman here at age 49, when Hollywood still thought once you hit 28, you might as well be a grandma in movies.  But women attend movies, and I suspect - based on the female-forward stories (but still very much of the politics of the 1950's) - that her audience were women, and these thrillers served that loyal fanbase.

Coppola Watch: The Outsiders (1983) - the full novel cut

Watched:  09/16/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Francis Ford Coppola

Selection:  Jamie

I've been meaning to see this movie *since* 1983.  But over time, I'd heard mixed things and I came to know what the story was, anyway, via cultural osmosis.  My one memory from when it hit cable in the mid-1980's was being told "you wouldn't like it" - and I genuinely don't know why I was told that at the time, probably aged 9 or 10.

When I was 11, the kid across the street came over while me and some others were sitting around in my front yard and asked us to "rumble".  I now assume they'd just seen this movie and were inspired.  We did not rumble.  We did ask them what movie they pulled "rumble" from.*  I think I now have the answer.

The movie is now mostly famous as the movie that launched careers.  All of the leads went on to become staples and household names for the generation that came up on the movie - it's sort of ground zero for a few brat packers.  Patrick Swayze, Tom Cruise, Emilio Estevez, Ralph Macchio, Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, Diane Lane - and starring C. Thomas Howell as Ponyboy.  For those of us so-inclined, it also has an appearance by Michelle Meyrink.**  Sophia Coppola shows up for literally 30 seconds.

Lauren Bacall at 100

 

Yesterday marked the 100th birthday of Lauren Bacall (born Betty Joan Perske), one of the greats of 20th Century cinema.  

Bacall came to fame as soon as she hit Hollywood, following a meteoric rise as a magazine model.  She famously wound up in LA somewhat by accident, noticed by the wife of Howard Hawks.  Hawks meant to send an inquiry about her, and his secretary misunderstood and had her sent out to LA.  

She was placed into a major studio picture immediately by Hawks (who was managing her career) and her introduction to Humphrey Bogart made her one half of of one of the most storied romances in cinema history.  

I'll be honest, I've never seen her less than great in anything.  Bacall was a natural beauty, sure, but she was also a natural talent from day one.  To Have and Have Not, her first picture, makes her seem like a seasoned pro, and she was, I believe, 19 at the time of filming (with the apparent world-weary maturity of a 40 year old).

We think she's great here at The Signal Watch, and are so very glad that Mr. Hawks' staff made their error and got Bacall into the movies.  Now get out there and watch Key Largo.

1930's Watch: Dead End (1937)

Watched:  09/15/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  William Wyler

After seeing Sylvia Sydney - and quite liking her - in Merrily We Go To Hell, we decided to check out one of her many other films.  Amazon lists things like "Oscar Nominations x4" now as you're scrolling, and as Dead End (1937) had 4 Oscar noms, we gave it a spin.

The credits on this thing are bonkers.  Directed by William Wyler, it was a movie based on a play - and the screenplay was by Lillian Hellman.  Then the cast list came up.  Sylvia Sidney, Joel McCrae, Humphrey Bogart, Claire Trevor, Ward Bond.... not a bad line-up.  

The credits done, the movie then moved over a multi-story, gigantic set depicting the titular "dead end" of the film as a New York street runs into the river and where a gigantic high-class apartment building had gone in amongst tenement buildings - gentrification of a rough part of town (and based on a real building, in a real dead end in New York, 53rd Street and the East River.  I believe FDR Drive now runs through the location of the play and film.)

The set has a river, restaurants, etc... all built, the intersection feeling as real and immersive as anything I think I've seen from the era.  While it's not Intolerance, it's a massive set that's as accurate as possible.  

Kurosawa Rewatch: Yojimbo (1961)

Watched: 09/12/2024

Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Akira Kurosawa

Well, back in May, I watched this movie for the first time.  

It's been a long time since I've watched the same movie twice in the same year.  Or, at least, I don't do it often anymore.  There's too much out there, I guess.  

Anyway - I really liked this one the first time, and that was true again on a second viewing.  

30's Watch: Merrily We Go To Hell (1932)

Watched:  09/09/2024

Format:  Library Disc

Viewing:  First

Director:  Dorothy Arzner

One nice thing about wandering a shelf of movies is that you may experience "serendipitous discovery" - the thing where you weren't looking for an item, but suddenly you are pretty sure this is what you really needed.  And what I needed was to find out what a movie from 1932 called Merrily We Go To Hell was all about.  

I recognized the male star's name - Frederic March - March was a major star staring at the end of the silent era and continuing for decades.  And the female lead's name rang a bell - Sylvia Sidney - but I couldn't say from where. 

The film was directed by Dorothy Arzner, perhaps the lone female director working in Hollywood during this period.  It was an *incredibly* strange time in the industry as the film business had employed women writers, directors, editors and more for the first twenty years of the industry, but as the Silent Era wrapped, the key roles in film showed women the door, and it's difficult to know what was lost as a result of this change.

Merrily We Go To Hell is a film about two stock 1930's movie characters - a newspaperman with aspirations of writing plays, and a rich society gal - meeting and falling in love.  At first blush, it seems it will be a comedy about heavy drinking in society circles - and it is about drinking.  But it changes tones, becoming very obviously about the evils of spirits and fancy actresses.  And, perhaps more importantly, it's about the "modern" marriage, where women allow their husbands to cheat and carry on, because they're doing so themselves.*

James Earl Jones Merges With the Infinite

Actor, icon and voice, James Earl Jones has passed.  He was 93.

There will be plenty written about Jones over the next few days.  As there should be.  

James' history is that of the 20th Century.  He made his debut on the stage and found his way to the big screen.  He went from obscurity to becoming the voice of one of the most complicated villains on the Big Screen in popular entertainment, to a Snake Cult wizard, to a King we all think of as Dad, to a spirit guide for Kevin Costner.

I still get choked up at everything the man does in Field of Dreams.  It's a perfect performance in a perfect movie.  He gave the perfect speech about baseball, and for that alone, we should be grateful.

Jones' IMDB page is interesting - he looks like a journeyman actor given his number of credits.  But he was a legend to many of us.  And for all those guest roles, he was still doing stage work.  

Jones was one of the first actors whose names I knew, alongside the rest of the Star Wars cast.  I never saw him where he was anything less than great in part after part, and I've missed him since he retired. 

Here's to someone who's been there since I first knew what a movie was, and gave us some of the greatest characters we had in film in my lifetime.