Claire Denis’s masterpiece 35 Shots of Rum
by Sam Juliano
New York Yankee fans are in seventh heaven after the team’s first-round sweep over the Minnesota Twins, earning the Bronx Bombers an American League Championship rendez-vous with the California Angels beginning on Friday. Wonders in the Dark Phillies fans are also hopeful their team will advance after an expected victory over Colorado after some Rocky Mountain snow delays. Actually, the Phillies did triumph and willnow advance to the championship round.
At Wonders, while we had some very active threads, the biggest news was the wind-up of the 1980’s poll, with results due any day, courtesy of Angelo A. D’Arminio Jr. Results may be posted as early as Wednesday, with the 90’s polling set to launch by the end of the week.
I had another busy week on the cultural scene, though my theatrical movie total total was down from last week. At the Metropolitan Opera I saw the new production of Puccini’s Tosca, which was later broadcast on Saturday afternoon at area movie theatres. I decided to take the opera in a second time on HD to gain the close-up perspective. (My review of the on-live staging appeared here on Friday of last week). On Saturday night I attended a staging of a “vampire musical” titled The Cure on 54th Street in Manhattan, which I personally found awful in every way imaginable.
On the movie scene I saw the following:
35 Shots of Rum ***** (Film Forum; Monday night)
Paranormal Activity **** (Sunday night; Clifton, N. J. multiplex)
An Education **** (Friday night; Union Square Cinemas)
Good Hair *** 1/2 (Saturday afternoon; Edgewater multiplex)
The Boys Are Back *** 1/2 (Sunday afternoon; Montclair Claridge Cinemas)
Paranormal Activity,
reportedly produced for $11,000 with a hand-held camera slowly builds tension, and the final twenty minutes is as horrifying as anything I’ve seen in ages. An Education contains an extraordinary performance by Carey Mulligan and brilliant script of Nick Hornsby set in 60’s Britain. This variation on the coming-of-age theme is lovingly textured and felt, and it’s re-creation of period is remarkable. Good Hair is a surprisingly effective social documentary about African-American hair, with humor and perceptive insights in black femininity. The Boys Are Back is a passable family drama about a father thrust into the role of single-parent by tragedy, which sometimes veers precariously into melodrama. Clive Owen delivers a moving performance. Claire Denis’s 35 Shots of Rum is a masterpiece. It’s another observational, detailed expression (with few words) much in the style of Ozu that conveys the disperate feelings in a socially-changing France of loneliness, and the small gestures that define a simple existence entwined with spirituality. In the end this is a deeply moving work of humanism. My good friend Jason Giampietro, who attended with me, was also blown away by the film.Around the blogosphere there is some great stuff:
- We are only a week aways from Kevin J. Olson’s widely-anticipated Italian Horror-Blog-A-Thon at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eg04Zz3CERw/SsmZb7IVJhI/AAAAAAAACvs/pCJ4xlY5DNo/s1600-h/Sidebar+Banner+02+resized.BMP
- Troy Olson’s, Kevin’s brother is embarking on his Trip to Italy: http://troyolson.blogspot.com/2009/10/vacation-time-italy.html
- John Greco’s superlative review of Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing is at “24 Frames”: http://twentyfourframes.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/the-killing-1956-stanley-kubrick/
- Dave Hicks is up to 1986 and Woody Allen’s Hannah and Her Sisters with his annual countdown: http://goodfellamovies.blogspot.com/2009/10/1986-hannah-and-her-sisters-woody-allen.html
- Ed Howard and Jason Bellamy have really been on fire with their monthly conversations, and the one on “Pixar” and Wall-E is one of their best: http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/10/conversations-pixar.html
- Dee Dee’s Halloween countdown continues with a posting of a review of Disney’s Lonesome Ghosts at “Darkness Into Light”: http://noirishcity.blogspot.com/2009/10/31-days-to-halloween-countdowncontinues_09.html
- Tony d’Ambra’s latest very accomplished sensory piece is up at FilmsNoir.net: http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/electric-nightmares-in-dark-empty-warehouses.html
- David Schleicher’s fabulous new piece on the 90’s and The Sweet Hereafter is stll up at his place: http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/electric-nightmares-in-dark-empty-warehouses.html
- The esteemed Film Doctor has a piece up at his site on The Hitchiking Movie: http://filmdr.blogspot.com/2009/10/america-weird-notes-on-hitchhiking.html
- Jon Lanthier has three short capsules up, including a four-star consideration of what appears to be a fascinating film titles Araya at The Powerstrip: http://blog.aspiringsellout.com/2009/10/this-week-slant.html
- Dan Getahun’s excellent “pre-review” of A Serious Man is up at Getafilm: http://getafilm.blogspot.com/2009/10/review-serious-man.html
- Andrew Wyatt has an excellent capsule up at Gateway Cinephiles on Baader-Meinhof Complex: http://gatewaycinephiles.com/2009/10/05/quick-review-the-baader-meinhof-complex/
- Reporting from the Chicago International Film Festival Marilyn Ferdinand has a review up on Beyond Ipanema: http://ferdyonfilms.com/
- Craig Kennedy has a joyous repeat-viewing report up to start-up his weekly “Watercooler” at Living in Cinema: http://livingincinema.com/2009/10/11/the-watercooler-a-serious-education/
- Pat at Doodad Kind of Town has an intriguing Weekend Diary up at her place which appears to be essential reading: http://doodadkindoftown.blogspot.com/2009/10/diary-of-weekend-movie-marathon.html
- Kaleem Hasan has an interpiece photo piece up on “Calcutta’s Lighthouse Cinema” at Satyamshot: http://satyamshot.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/9508/
- Judy of “Movie Classics” has a new review up of Devil Dogs of the Air: http://movieclassics.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/devil-dogs-of-the-air-1935/
- Qalandar’s newest post is titled “A Movie Poster Yatra”: http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2009/10/movie-poster-yatra.html
- Dorothy Porker has what appears to be fascinating comprehensive piece up at Inside the Gold titled “The Ladies from Nine do Vogue: http://www.insidethegold.com/2009/10/ladies-from-nine-do-vogue.html
- Our own Joel Bocko continues to headline his “You Know Need A Metro” piece up at The Dancing Image: http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2009/10/you-dont-need-metro-to-know-which-way.html
- T.S. of Screen Savour still leads with The General in his continuing Keaton series: http://www.screensavour.net/2009/09/general-1927.html
- Samuel Wilson at “Mondo 70″ features The Gambler at his place: http://mondo70.blogspot.com/2009/10/gambler-1974.html
- Alexander Coleman still headlines with his very fine review of The Horse Boy at CCC: http://colemancornerincinema.blogspot.com/2009/10/horse-boy-2009.html
- Shubhajit has a capsule review up at Cinemascope of Polanski’s Repulsion: http://cliched-monologues.blogspot.com/2009/10/repulsion-1965.html
- Joseph Demme at a reciew of The Brothers Bloom up at Cinexcellence: http://cinexcellence.com/2009/10/06/the-brothers-bloom/
- Bob Clark, who penned the great Heaven’s Gate review at Wonders still has his equally great Inglourious Basterds piece up at The Aspect Ratio: http://theaspectratio.net/inglouriousbasterds.htm
***Spoilers***
Dude, I saw Paranormal Activity the showing before you did, but not in Clifton, but in Paramus. It did start off slowly, but the scene where the girl is pulled out of bed and dragged down the hall and that terrifying final scene were worth the price of admission. The Blair Witch is small potatoes next to this.
We ate at that Food Court downstairs. Not exactly a memorable culinary experience.
Hey Joe! I didn’t know you were planning to see it. Of course I do agree that the final 15 to 20 minutes were as scary as anything you could witness on a movie screen. Yeah that basement Food Court is the pits in more ways than one.
I am recovering from a hell of a day on Monday. After leaving Cincy on a 7 AM (meaning getting up at around 4 to meet up with folks) flight to New York, the plan was to return on a 5 PM flight back to New York. Instead, problems with the plane resulted in a 4 hour plus delay at Laguardia. The result? Dropping entirely too much money at the bar while trying to kill time! I eventually reached that point where you’re so tired that you actually can’t even sleep well.
As for movies… I had a “revelation” in terms of my own viewing: Buster Keaton. SHERLOCK, JR. blew me away, made me think I had to have missed something when I watched THE GENERAL and was only mildly amused. Sherlock, Jr. might be the best comedy I’ve ever seen. I’m going to have to get more Keaton. These are the only two that I’ve seen, but I also have STEAMBOAT BILL, JR. waiting to be watched.
I also made a very timely purchase, considering that both the 90s poll is getting ready to start here in the coming weeks and my own countdown is approaching the same years. I found set of Kieslowski’s THREE COLORS TRILOGY for only $20 at a nearby used bookstore and immediately bought it. I’ve only watched BLUE so far, which I definitely like, but am hopeful that the others might be even better. Kieslowski certainly was an incredible visual stylist.
And thanks again for the link, Sam, I appreciate it.
the sentence “the plan was to return on a 5 PM flight back to New York” should reading “the plan was to return on a 5 PM flight back FROM New York.”
Sorry for the typo… As I said, I’m just coming off being awake for 23 consecutive hours, so my gas tank is quite low!
Dave, sorry to hear about that down time in the Big Apple. Lucille and I would have LOVED to meet up with you! Perhaps one day we will. I used to drive an airport limousine in the summer and on weekends in the late 80’s and 90’s, and I can’t say how many long delays I had at good old La Guardia!
And Dave, you may well have hit it on the nose there what you say about SHERLOCK JR. To say it’s the greatest comedy ever made is a statement to be taken seriously methinks!
What a fantastic purchase there with the three Kieslowskis. I’m expecting these films (and VERONIQUE as well) will do very well in the 90’s poll.
Still battling this flu bug. Antibiotics have me almost there. Still reading up on Obama’s surprising win of the Nobel Peace Prize. The more I read, the more amazed I become. Bought the BEATLES remastered stereo box set and have been plugging away at each album. Relisteniung to them in this way has me reliving my youth. NOTE TO ALLAN: Watched a terrific widescreen version of THE APARTMENT on TCM the other night.. Seeing it again makes me understand why you placed it so high in your 60’s count. I think it could be my favorite of all of Wilder’s films and its the performance of Jack Lemmon I love most. Sharp, witty, stylistic in tone and editing, terrific film all around!
Dennis, hope you will be 100% soon. I prefer a few other Wilders to THE APARTMENT, but there is little question at this site that it’s a huge favorite.
The film with Carey Mulligan really looks interesting, and I’ve read nothing but glowing reports. Don’t know if I’m motivated to see “Paranormal Activity”. I’m thinking of “Cloverfield” here.
Watched “Night of the Demon” and “Motel Hell” on DVD. The first was a classic, but the second was quite funny.
Go Yanks!
Frank, I would go even further. ‘Night of the Demon’ is one of the most thought-provoking of all horror films. Not sure the studio should have shown us the Monster though.
Frank: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is really nothing like CLOVERFIELD, (which was admittedly a mess) It’s a far more intimate piece. Agreed on NIGHT OF THE DEMON, which has also been one of my long time favorites.
I am hoping to hear what films finished near the top of the 80’s poll. I’ve been a bit under the weather this week, and was unable to see or do much. That vampire musical sounds trashy.
Maria, I received a personal visit tonight (and this report is also to Bob and Dennis) from Mr. D’Arminio for our weekly “pasta” night and he will have the results to me by mid-afternoon tomorrow, meaning they will post Thursday morning. Allan’s nearlies will be up on Friday, at which point both you guys will be able to enter your lists. I am working on my own now.
I think the Yankees will break their schneid with the Angels this year. They split 10 games. I’m expected a Yankees/Dodgers match up in the World Series.
Hopefully, ‘A Serious Man’ will make an appearance in N.J. this weekend. I’m hot to trot with that one. The problem with seeing something like ‘Paranormal Activity’ is that you have to deal with the rowdy teen crowd at the Multiplex. I’m not always in the mood for that.
Dave, I am with you there with “A Serious Man.” I hope it will run on this side of the river by the weekend.
David, I know well what you are saying there about the teenage assault on the multiplexes. We all had to endure it ourselves. But we did take our 10 year-old son Danny with us.
Further thinking on THE APARTMENT. Considering its theme (a man lends out his pad to office bosses for their extramarital affairs so he can speedily climb the coporate ladder), its a wonder that this film even got made in 1960. However, considering Wilder’s deft, almost frantically comical handling of the material, he never allows the film to spill over into slapstick or spoof. Matter of fact, by second third of the film he and Diamonds script takes a sharp turn towards the dramatic and levels the whole thing off into a reality not usually associated with comiedies of this period. Like the lesser BUTTERFIELD 8 and films like THE MIRACLE WORKER and INHERIT THE WIND, I can see through these films a Hollywood beginning to mature. Lemmons performance is a perfect balance of pathos and its not hard to see from this film why he was one of the elite character actors in demand at the time.
I’ve also recently come to the realization that THE APARTMENT is my favorite Billy Wilder film. I picked up the SE DVD, which is a great release.
Jack Lemmon was not just a great character actor, but the deeper he got into his career he would also show that he could do anything — the usual comedy, drama, whatever. He was great.
Dave: As I said above, there’s no doubt THE APARTMENT is a huge Wilder favorite here.
Dave and Dennis, The Apartment is certainly one of Wilder’s best, I personally rank it #2 or #3 on ly list, only because I flip flop between thsi film and Double Indemnity (Some Like it Hot is my #1). Wilder captures the essense of the white collar office in this film. While everything looks drab and dull on the surface, under the the surface there was a lot going on. Lemmon gives one of his best performances in The Apartment as does Fred MacMurray. This was definitely a sophisticated film for its time.
My peference for Hollywood starting mature would go back 1940/1941, the years after it’s banner year of 1939. There’s ‘The Grapes of Wrath’, ‘Citizen Kane’, ‘The Little Foxes’, ‘The Maltease Falcon’, ‘The Letter’, ‘All That Money Can Buy’ and ‘Sullivan’s Travels’. Many of them critical of capitalist dogma and values. Very radical. No wonder that Welles, Dieterle and Wyler would have problems with HUAC.
Sam, saw this week….
The Legend of 1900 (0/4) – from the makers of ‘Cinema Paradiso’.
A very poor film that looks good and has a couple of excellent sequences (including a piano competition) but is largely a far-fetched bore. It’s attempt at creating a fable-like atmosphere is turgid, making huge assumptions and leaps of logic (such as a little boy living in the underbelly of a ship being able to have Carnegie Hall worthy pianist skills).
Heart of Darkness (0/4) – a poor Nic Roeg adaption of Conrad’s novel.
One Fine Thing (0/4) – very poor TV movie style drama with ‘A’ list acting talent (Steep, Hurt, ect), about a woman who’s mother is ill with cancer and whom she moves in with to nurse.
Spiral II** – Four episodes of a French/BBC Four co-production. Maybe a mild compensation for ‘The Wire’ withdrawl symptons. Generally involving and an interesting insight in the French legal system.
I rather liked “The Legend of 1900.” It was no “Cinema Paradiso” but it had some beautiful segments.
Bobby: As always thanks so much for the comprehensive line-up. Your weekly activity is a major highlight of this weekly diary, and we all learn and are intrigued by the films and television you regularly navigate.
Of the four items you saw, I only saw Tornatore’s THE LEGEND OF 1900, which like Peter, I liked far more than you did. The score by Morricone is one of his masterpieces, and that lead theme is frankly ravishing. I do completely understand, though, why you would feel much of the film is dull. Most of the critics are with you on this film.
Great thoughts on Sherlock, Jr., Dave. I had the opportunity to see it in a theater recently with a live band accompaniment and it was unforgettable. But I still do love The General as well. T.S. has great pieces on both up at his site: http://www.screensavour.net/
Thanks for the plug, Sam. I didn’t have much of meaning to say about A Serious Man, but I did love it, and think it will remain firmly in my Top 10, maybe even Top 5, this year.
The only thing I saw this weekend was the disastrous Couples Retreat. For all that it is currently out and considering all that I have not seen, this was an inexcusable mistake and I deserved the punishment.
Speaking of which, so did my beloved MN Twins. I’m getting real sick of the “Aw-shucks, at least we played hard” attitude around this team. Championships are won when players are paid, period. With few exceptions, the teams with the highest payrolls are the ones winning year after year, and the overachieving Twins will never get to the Promised Land on pure emotion.
Many thanks for the plug. I did mean to vote on the 1980s poll but failed to do so in the end – however will be very interested to see what wins, and hopefully actually vote on the 1990s poll! 35 Shots of Rum sounds great from your description, Sam – sadly I think I’ve already missed it at cinemas in the UK, but will hope to see it on DVD.
I’ve seen two movies at the cinema in the past week, – ‘Creation’, the Darwin biopic starring Paul Bettany, which I found harrowing and at times downright depressing but am somehow liking more in retrospect than I did while watching, and ‘Dorian Gray’, which I thought was terrible except for Colin Firth, who seemed to be in a different film from everybody else! The CGI portrait is absolutely dire, be warned!
Also this week I saw ‘Mr Skeffington’ (1944), starring Bette Davis and Claude Rains – interesting if flawed, I’d say. It seems to begin well but fizzle out later. Much as I love Davis, I thought Rains gave by far the best performance – anyway I’d like to write something about it but am hoping to read the book by Elizabeth von Arnim first to compare.
Hey Judy! The Region 2 DVD of the Claire Dennis film will be out in the UK later this week, as Allan has pointed out to me several times. I’d love to hear your views on a film that must surely rank as one of the year’s best.
The Darwin bio-pic sounds great! I think Allan saw the version of DORIEN GREY you report on here; I only saw the Hollywood original.
I completely agree with your comparative estimation of Mr. Rains’s performance there in MR. SKEFFINGTON. Thanks so much for this wonderful report.
Sam,
thanks again for the mention. My week was tied up with work and the rest of my life resulting in only two films being seen. Kazan’s “Boomerang!” which I am writing about and “Scandal Sheet”, directed by Phil Karlson. Hopefully, things slow down and I’ll have more viewing time this week.
Hey John, we all have some down weeks, but your pace frankly has been incomparable the past months. As you know and have advertised the Kazan festival has been ongoing at the Film Forum. I was over there last night to see the new Claire Denis film and noticed that EAST OF EDEN was there. Thanks again for your thoughtfulness and generosity with your parcel, which arrived today. Willl look forward to that BOOMERANG! review my very good friend.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on BOOMERANG! as well. It’s by no means a great film, but I think it’s definitely an above-average noir.
There are a pair of Kazan films that I’ve wanted to see for a while but haven’t found yet — AMERICA, AMERICA and WILD RIVER, both of which I see are being shown during this Kazan run at the Film Forum. Looks like I should have tried to make it to New York not yesterday, but on the days those are showing!
Ah Dave, the Film Forum would be the bets place to meet up, especially for something as appealing as this Kazan festival. AMERICA is being offered later this week, I think, and WILD RIVER as well.
Boomerang, an early movie from Kazan, is known for its then innovative quasi-documentary style. Based on a true story, it is a sharp and well-acted film where a small-town DA in a novel reversal of role determines the innocence of a troubled WW2 vet wrongly charged with murder. The story of integrity in the face of political corruption and police expediency remains strong, but it feels dated. How others have classified this picture as a noir has me stumped. Yes, the accused is a war veteran struggling to catch up in the “parade of life” after 5 years in the army, but this is peripheral and does not a film noir make.
Kazan in my view only made one noir. Panic In the Streets (1950) is an interesting documentary-style noir set on the docks of New Orleans as local authorities track down violent hoods infected with a virulent infection. It is a fast-paced on-the-streets thriller with little time or inclination for deep characterisation. The movie picked up the Venice International prize in 1950, and an Oscar for Best Writing in 1951. Tautly directed by Kazan and with strong street cred: the climax on a ship’s mooring rope is elegantly metaphoric.
Richard Widmark is cast against (then) type as the local health official pushing the cops to track down the killers of an illegal alien who has infected the hoods with pneumonic plague. Paul Douglas is well-cast as the reluctant cop who heads the police task force. Jack Palance and Zero Mostel are strong as the hoods, with a certain tension between them: Palance is focused and brutal, while Mostel is nervous and obsequious. Cinematographer, Joe MacDonald, who did similar work in The Dark Corner (1946), has filmed the night scenes with moody noir atmospherics.
Given Kazan’s tendency for emotional distance and the cinema-verite approach, there is a strong social dimension to the picture. The working people in the docks milieu distrust the cops and are uncooperative, and the cops and local bureaucrats are reluctant partners. The mood is of dysfunction and the trajectory is that it is only the doggedness of Widmark and Douglas that saves the day.
All this points to Kazan’s complexity and contradictions. While those on the edge of criminal society are fairly portrayed, there is the feeling that they are stubborn and boorish, and need to be bullied by authority. At the same time, public institutions are seen at logger-heads and can only function effectively if commandeered by strong personalities.
Conventionally, Widmark and Douglas develop a grudging respect for each other and by the end of the story are friends. Strangely, this relationship for me is the core of the film, and comes not only from what happens on the screen, but also from a backward almost nostalgic perspective. Both these actors invest their roles with an essential integrity: they are not perfect, struggle financially, and their personal lives have their share of bewilderment and angst, but they are thoroughly decent men doing tough jobs, for lousy pay, and little social recognition or thanks. These guys inhabit a lost black and white world of simpler times when normal lives seemed to have greater decency. Perhaps also this perception is colored for me by Paul Douglas, a wonderful actor who always came across as a totally solid guy that you would love to have as your friend.
(Above is from my reviews at FilmsNoir.Net)
Tony, thanks for entering this fantastic response here. I do believe I did see those two reviews originally but it’s great to see them posted again here, and the high appraisals for both BOOMERANG and PANIC IN THE STREETS!
ALSO: Its done, finished, in the tank and dressed for the party. I HAVE COMPLETED MY LIST FOR THE 90′S POLL. After hours of sweating it out, scanning the side-bar listings for that decade and referring to IMDB for added info, I have finally secured 25 films for election. Let’s go now, I’m revved up and ready to strut my stuff!!!!!!
Same here. I finished my list about a month ago, and finished up writing paragraphs for all 50 of my entries last weekend. I’m just as anxious as you are to get it out there.
Bob: I look forward to laying eyes on your list!
BOBBY J-I was wrong to use the word MATURE, when describing the new-wave in American cinema that was emmerging in the 1960’s. I should have said REALISTIC. THE APARTMENT is one of the earliest indicators of this want to present realistic stories, themes and repreentations in Hollywood films. Of course, it wouldn’t be till the mid-to-late part of the decade where reality would take a strangle-hold on just about everything. Films like BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE GRADUATE, THE WILD BUNCH, MIDNIGHT COWBOY, COOL HAND LUKE, ROSEMARY’S BABY and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY firmly cemented Hollywoods interest in presenting films that were REAL and TRUTHFUL. All in all this could be, in my opinion, the most interesting decade in film since the silent era.
Dennis, I agree with you about both ‘Psycho’ and ‘The Apartment’ and both were in my 25 for the ’60s. I’d say though that though ‘mature’ may have been the wrong word to use, I think that ‘realistic’ may also be slightly off. Many og those films that you mentioned are as stylised as the ’40s ones I mentioned. I’d say ‘permissive’ would be a more appropriate word. Something that has continued to the present day. My favourite decade is probably the ’40s, possibly because tv hadn’t siponed so much of the talent away, more old masters were working at the same time than any other and at an industrial pace, film great after film great and it was an era of taste, wit and tremendous style. By the way, 7 of those ’60s films you mentioned were in my top 25. Dennis, you have great taste in movies….it exactly matches my own. Today.
Even Hitchcock got more realistic in the 1960’s. I doubt anyone would disagree that PSYCHO is probably his one truly great REALISTIC film. Its natural performances, honest depiction of surrounding, and realistic presentation of uncomfortable themes is one of the most over-looked films in the realism of American films busting loose in the 60’s. Normans soliloquy about his mother being “as harmless as one of those stuffed birds” is a masterpiece of realistic timing and editing. I doubt, had we been able to hear Ed Geins actual testimonies on his crimes, the reality was not far removed from what ultimately went up on screen. PSYCHO is that rare Hitchcock film that does away with Hollywood conventions and gets under our skins because it cuts so close to home (pardon the pun). The rug pull of Marions murder to send focus on Norman is just the realistic turn that would have never reared its head in more conventional Hollywood fare. No, PSYCHO, like THE APARTMENT, is one of the fore-runners of the REALISM movement.
JUDY-Why compare? So often I am flogged by people who say; “I wanna read this book before the film comes out so I can compare.”. I don’t understand that logic. FILM and LITERATURE are two completely different mediums. The artists in either usually have different interpretations. CASE IN POINT: THE SHINING. Most will tell you that Stephen Kings novel is a tight and unsettling little read. Most who read the book will say the film and the book don’t compare. BUT, most will also say that Kubricks filmed version is BETTER than King’s novel. Does this mean the book or the film is better? No. It just means that one artist sees the material differently from the other artist. I say don’t compare. Jusdge a book by its cover and a film by what’s up on screen. I like Kings book. BUT I LOVE KUBRICKS FILM. One is a “writer”, the other is a true ARTIST. The book just laid the essentials for Kubrick to pepper his deep mind on. There’s no comparison. And I agree with you, Rains steals MR. SKEFFINGTON (he OSCAR nominated).
I made the mistake of trying to read a book before seeing its film, and it cost me the chance to actually see that movie in the theaters. I’m talking about “Casino Royale”, and I consider it a true lost opportunity.
Dennis, I actually partly agree – they are different mediums. I often find it interesting to look at the differences between book and film, but I don’t expect a film just to reproduce the book! I like your phrase: “It just means that one artist sees the material differently from the other artist.”
BOBBY-My old pal, late nite nemisis and dual film fanatic. Haven’t heard from you in a while. Sorry I’ve been away, Flu bug is killing me. Read your essay on HEAVENS GATE and was blown away. I’m actually thinking of penning a few pieces to run simultaneously with Allan’s count-down. As Sammy usually likes to throw in “alternate” reviews for films that may get forgotten and should be mentioned I have few up my sleeve as well. I was thinking of essays on the Coen Bros. THE BIG LEBOWSKI, the ground-breaking computer animated TOY STORY and their is a particular documentary very high on my list (I just say No. 5) that I’d like to talk about. After your HEAVENS GATE treatise, I woyld hope you’d feel the freedom to pen a few essays yourself, perhaps on films that may be exclusive to your list. Good hearing from you, BOB-O!!!!!!.
Yeah. I’m thinking a repost of my “Phantom Menace” essay could be a good fit, if for no other reason than to screw with everyone’s heads. I’d be interested in reading a “Toy Story” piece, but “Lebowski” feels a little done to death, at this point (still, another look couldn’t hurt). I’m considering writing up “GoldenEye”, a movie I find a HELL of a lot more important, at least as an artifact of popular culture, than people give it credit for.
As for the doc– “Hoop Dreams”, perhaps?
for a 90’s doc, nothing touches ‘American Movie’, one of my absolute favorites– from any decade (I’m assuming it will place high when I compile my 90’s list). Though to be far, I do also like ‘Hoop Dreams’ quite a bit.
AMERICAN MOVIE is a top doc of this decade, I quite agree Jamie.
AHHHHHHHH SCHMULEE!!!!! Watch out, the blog rolls are about to get bigger. Bob Clark and myself are back on the night shift and itchy to banter!!!!!!!! God, this could get MANIC!!!!! LOLOLOL!!!!!!!
Okay, maybe not “Hoop Dreams”. Is it “The Thin Blue Line”? No, that was from 1988 (I knew I missed something!). “Fast, Cheap & Out of Control”? I’ll admit, I’m not really up on mu 90’s docs.
I’d love to read one on GOLDENEYE, one of my favorite Bond films that gets lost in the shuffle. NOPE on HOOP DREAMS Bobby. While I love the doc, I find two others far superior. One (not the one I’ll write about), is about the making of a classic film. I’ll give you a hint though, the one I will write about is about an artist and art of a completely different kind.
Hmm… “Hearts of Darkness” sounds like a good bet… Either that or “The Battle Over Citizen Kane”… As for the other one… “Hands on a Hard Body”?
DAVE-That purchase of THREE COLORS TRILOGY is a tremendous get. Keep BLUE fresh in your mind, it’ll come back to haunt you (literally), its also my favorite of the three. But, and I say this without any equivocation, that box may house two of the top ten films of the 90’s. Schmulee and I saw all three of them when they were released in theatres and each film had us shaking when we emmereged from the very under-ground LiNCOLN SQUARE CINEMA theatre across the street from LINCOLN CENTER. Kieslowski’s death, just a few short months after the release of RED was a loss of magnified proportions to the film-making community and fans of film alike. I know Sam and I were bummed out for weeks after we heard the news. His legacy though, is 14 masterworks in less than 20 years. Rightfully, he should be considered a modern master. You hold dynamite in that box set.
BOBBY-I wish my hands were on a hard body. YES, HEARTS OF DARKNESS is one of the two. However, the one I’ll write about has nothing to do with film-making. Nice try though.
“Hardbody” was a joke, of course. If I had to make one final guess as to the one you’ll write up… “CRUMB”.
That is going to be my final guess, right or wrong. This is fun and all, but I don’t wanna do this all night.
Yes, BOBBY, YES. CRUMB is the film I speak of. Terry Zwighoff’s unflinching camera set out to capture an artists and his thoughts and, in the process, also caught an examination on mental illness and psychosis within the creative mind. I saw this film in NYc with Sam and Lucille when it was realeased and the three of us were dumb-founded by the experience. Literally, our jaws hit the floor. Funny, touching, depressing and, at times, raucously hysterical, this could be the best movie documentary about a fine artist ever comitted to film. Sam and Lucille knew nothing of Crumb before the film. However, Zwighoff so expertly illustrates Crumbs professional career with testimonies and excerpts of his comics that it works as a commentary to the spiraling mental deterioration of the subjects on screen. I saw it three times after the first viewing just so I could make sure I didn’t dream this film up.
Indeed Dennis, indeed.
BAD NEWS……
The BBC is to revive the classic British Television show ‘Upstairs, Downstairs’. Not a remake but a sequel to the original.
It will appear as two TV movies and will continue the story of the house from 1936.
Jean Marsh will reprise her role of Rose, the parlourmaid. Dame Eileen Atkins, who was co-creator of the original and such a hit in the recent ‘Cranford’ will have a special role created for her.
The press release say states: “We rejoin the world of Upstairs Downstairs in the years leading up to the Second World War. Times are changing and servants are no longer cheap and obedient; Rose soon finds she has her work cut out.”
The original was a huge unexpected hit in both Britain and the US and shown in more than 70 countries worldwide, to an audience of over one billion, winning seven Emmys, two BAFTAs and a Golden Globe.
BBC Wales, which has also brought back Doctor Who will be the producing company. “This is not a remake but a completely new version, set in a different era with a whole new cast of characters.”
Jean Marsh said: “I am hugely looking forward to spending time with Rose. I have missed her enormously.”
Bobby: Do you really think this is bad news? Is there at least a fair chance that they will pull this off? Certainly the passion and talent is in place anyway. Thanks as always for yet another fascinating report.
I’ll admit I’m looking forward to it – the screenwriter is Heidi Thomas, who adapted ‘Cranford’, and with Atkins and Marsh I think it could be something special. Hope so, anyway.
There’s something insidously awful on playing past triumphs. They revived ‘The Twilight Zone’ 4 or 5 times (only the 2nd was any good) – why couldn’t have just used another name. ‘The Outer Limits’ was made into a god-awful revival – it’s film noir sensibilities jettisoned with a bland, soft porn visual look replacing it.
The original ‘Upstairs, Downstairs’ was perfect as was, made by different sensibilities and finished on a stunning note of tragedy and sadness, as Rose wondered about and heard the echoes of the past, running out with tears tickling down her cheeks.
Think of those 70 episodes as a movie, each representing a minute. Why add two more minutes to a movie 35 years later. How would you feel if someone, decided to add two more minutes to ‘Citizen Kane’, ‘2001.’, ‘Double Indemnity’, ‘Vertigo’, ‘Cries and Whispers’.
Alfred Shaughnessy was the guiding force of the original, and he’s dead.
As for Heidi Thomas…
* Madame Bovary, 2000, BBC One
* I Capture the Castle, 2003, BBC Films
* Lilies, 2007, BBC One
* Ballet Shoes, 2007, BBC One
* Cranford, 2007, BBC One
All adaptions apart from ‘Lilies’ which ran for one eight-episode series in early 2007 on BBC One. The show’s tagline was “Liverpool, 1920. Three girls on the edge of womanhood, a world on the brink of change.”
Well, if you can’t create your own series, why not grave-rob one of televisions crowning glories.
So Jean Marsh appears 8 years after the original series’ 1929 finish, having aged 34 years and we are supposed to accept that. It’s the same as Nimoy appearing in the new Star Trek. Pure hogwash, to give somekind of tacit approval, a passing of the baton.
The BBC, arrogant and insulated by the licence fee, decides to bring back past glories (it wasn’t even theirs to begin with – being a production of the commercial ITV side). Why not bring back their own ‘The Duchess of Duke Street’, which wasn’t anywhere near as sucessful.
This is simply cultural grave-robbing of the highest and most brazen order. I wish upon them the curse of ‘The Godfather Part 3′.
If the original creative team of “Upstairs, Downstairs” were behind this sequel, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt, Bobby J. Bergman returned to his “Scenes From a Marriage” characters with “Saraband”, and he did pretty well. “Godfather Part 3″ wasn’t as good as its predecessors, but that’s due more to the studio’s rushed production than Coppola’s direction– given enough time and money, it could’ve easily been the best of the bunch. Suffice it to say– whenever a director/author/artist wants to revisit their own work, I say go ahead, even if the results are shaky. They have every right to sequelize their own stuff. It’s when newcomers think they’re equal to the task of continuing a franchise that things get ugly.
Agreed, Bob…I’d give them the benefit of the doubt if that were true.
But there is also a point where something perfect needs to be stopped. I’d say that the flaws in ‘The Godfather III’ were intrinsic in the conception and writing, rather than the production. But there is something else going on too.
The BBC have in recent years revived….
‘The Office’ – after two series, the creators were persuaded to do two Christmas specials. The first one was excellent, the 2nd not so good and the only tarnish in an superb series.
‘Auf Wiedersehen, Pet’ – a blisteringly funny comedy/drama from ITV and one of the classics of British tv in the ’80s was revived in 2002-2004, by the Beeb and a special. It was awful.
‘Only Fools and Horses’ – a classic BBC sit-com that became an national institution and ended with extraordinarily sucessful three Christmas Specials as the characters headed off into the sunset, having struck it rich. Two years later, they revived the series with an attempt at a ratings grab and three new bland specials were ushered in.
‘Between the Lines’ – perhaps the finest cop show from the British Isles, voted in the ‘Top 100 Tv Shows of All Time’ by The British Film Institute. The creator was persuaded to do one more series, when he felt that two was the perfect end of the series.
These are other examples….it’s just a huge dumbing down by the Beeb. Relying on tried and tested formats or nostagia and the buzz that creates.
Consider that we had ‘I, Claudius’ then and ‘Rome’ now, ‘The Six Wives of Henry the 8th’ and it’s sequel ‘Elizabeth R.’ and ‘The Tudors’ now.
Tabloid tv from Public Service TV.
I rather liked “Rome”, actually, and consider it too bad that it was quickly wrapped up in season 2. That was more of an American/British coproduction, however, than a pure BBC series like “I, Claudius”. Even ignoring the HBO connection, two of the three creators (William MacDonald and eratz gonzo-conservative John Milius) are American. At any rate, it was a far better series than “The Tudors”, a real piece of soap-porn trash if ever there was one.
Bobby, you are a traditionalist when it comes to TV, but some points I can agree with. Cranford was an excellent costume drama, but the specials produced for this Christmas (which I will watch and get for completist purposes, but am not expecting much) are simply flogging a horse which had been put correctly out to pasture.
Only Fools and Horses was always mediocre, however inexorably it ran. David Jason was great as Delboy, but like Michael Crawford’s Frank Spencer, the series wasn’t worthy of the creation. The Office I disagree, the specials had enough special moments in them to be worthy of the original. The same as with The Thick of It, though at least there the specials were done so as not to let the Blair-Brown handover go by untapped and to bridge a gap to the eagerly awaited Series 2 in a few months time.
As for Upstairs, Downstairs, I have mixed feelings. Couldn’t agree more re Jean Marsh playing Rose at the age of 75. Are they going to invite Jackie Tong, Leslie-Anne Down and Anthony Andrews back from the 1975 (or 1929, depending on your POV) fade out. Leave it be, whoever redoes it, I can’t say I’m interested. Doctor Who was different in that it had been badly botched since the mid 70s (possibly even earlier) and needed a go in an age more conducive to it. Traditionalists will hate the new Who, but it’s still more enjoyable that its predecessor.
As for Rome, I enjoyed that as a sort of adult soap opera on the forum, but HBO botched it by rushing everything into Series 2 (and history dictated that the best performance – Ciaran Hinds’s Caesar, was finished). Or maybe I haven’t forgiving them for cancelling Deadwood a series early. What it had as an advantage over I Claudius is that you felt you were in Rome. In I Claudius – a great series but one that shows its age – you felt you were in a studio and never once felt part of Rome itself. Its intrigues, yes, the shadows and conspiracy, yes, but not the tangible Rome. Indeed, though it may be less ambitious and not quite as good, as a drama depicting the real Rome I preferred The Caesars to I Claudius, which had mediocre performances from John Hurt and George Baker (both too old) compared to the riveting portrayals of André Morell and Ralph Bates (still the best Caligula by a country mile).
As for The Tudors, it’s a worthless bodice ripper. The Keith Michell show Bobby mentions was no masterwork, indeed it dates alarmingly with Keith Michell’s voice as the older Henry turning into a sort of Roger Livesey impersonation so that you can’t take it seriously (Elizabeth R, though equally dated, is superior by far), but it’s more accurate than this recent monstrosity, compared to which even Ray Winstone’s Henry VIII is fantastic (Ray was actually very good, but the drama itself was lousy).
Allan, good points. I’m not so sure about being a traditionalist though. I’ve alway loved ‘Only Fools and Horses’, especially the early Lenard Perace years. I always felt it had a ‘Steptoe and Son’ feel and that whole market wheeler-dealer world, I’ve none. But I’m sure you know that you are in a tiny minority. Not that it takes anything way from your assesment.
As for Dr. Who.It’s not that I’m any sort of traditionalist. its the sheer banality of the new show. I’ve seen a fair amount of it and it’s so bloody childish. The Hartnell years, most episodes were too long and it hadn’t found it style really moving from SF adventures to historical ones. The Troughton years, or what survive in the archieves after the great purges, show the first signs of the show gaining the identity that would make it superb (especially ‘The Web of Fear’) , but most again are too long and the hectic production process meant that scripts fell through and paded serial lasting 8 and 10 episodes finished off the last season. The Pertwee years, again – the episodes were way too long, the 1st season had 3 seven-parters (including the semi-classic ‘The Ambassadors’). What it had was Roger Delgardo as the Master and colour, plus the single greatest asset the show ever had. The writer Robert Holmes was the show’s finest discovery and with the incoming producer Philip Hinchcliffe, no two people involved with the show have ever known what makes that show tick.
The writer/producer Russell T Davies, who foisted his misrable version of the 21st-century revival, praised Holmes, “Take The Talons of Weng Chiang, for example, Watch episode one it’s the best dialogue ever written, it’s up there with Dennis Potter, by a man called Robert Holmes. When the history of television drama comes to be written, Robert Holmes won’t be remembered at all because he only wrote genre stuff. And that, I reckon, is a real tragedy.”
Together, Hinchcliffe and Holmes revitalised the tired Pertwee era into the show’s only Golen Age. They kept what worked. The classic theme that’s never been surpassed, the swirling tunnel vortex titles credits by Bernard Lodge. They moved the show off the Earth bound era. Most of the shows were now 4 parters, the ideal length to create a wholly believable universe. And the had Tom Baker, who had the best elements of the previous three lead actors whilst bringing in his own unique take. SF themes from literature were brooked by a gothic sensibility. It was darker, meaner, edgier and creepy. He even wanted to use film for more atmosphere. actors from the theatre chose to work on the show because the scripts were of such an incredible level. The Dr Who Appreciation Society was born, Harlan Ellison raved after watching it and penned a foreward to the books being published, distingished SF writer Michael Moorecock, influentional editor of ‘New Worlds’ compared ‘Star Wars’ unfavourably against the show. After a first season which had the classic ‘Gensis of the Daleks’. His second season had ‘Terror of the Zygons’, ‘The Pyramids of Mars’ and ‘The Seeds of Doom’. The 3rd had ‘The Deadly Assasin’, ‘The Robots of death’ and ‘The Talons of Weng-Chiang’. This is what the show reputation rest upon. Each a classic, though some of them have the odd dodgy special effect- this was more because the sheer ambition of the production team went beyond what was achieable at the time. But these are the serials upon it’s reputation was built. It had morphed from a family show into one with adult sensibilities. It’s rating were the best the show has ever had and it was the spearhead of the BBC’s Saturday night domination for a decade. But there was a furious blacklash against it in the media, headed by Mary Whitehouse and her viewers and listeners association. The producer was yanked off and put onto the gritty crime show ‘Target’. From that moment on it faltered and died and slow death to its prestige and ratings. Those serials are worthy of being bracketed with anything produced by in ‘Thriller’, ‘The Outer Limits’, ‘Star Trek’ and ‘The Twilight Zone’. To experiance them is to know sheer bliss, everything that those ‘Flash Gordon’ and other movie serials were supposed to proved but never did unless you were a child. Any poll of new ‘Who’ and old will find them resting at the top. I’ve personally found the new show a fast-paced race through a story
told with a child-like pantomine effiminate sensibilty, ‘let’s go for an advenure’, more Enid Blyton or those tiresome American teen fantasy shows than fearsome, tingling ‘Who’ magic. The only thing the new show has going for it is special effects.
I’d give the original show two stars, the new one zero. Mind you, I am open to watching the best of the new show in case I’ve missed something. If it has a masterpiece, the way the original Star Trek had in ‘Where No Man Has Gone before’ or ‘The City on the edge of Forever’ – ones that I’ve used to critics of the show and had them do a 180 degree turn.
As for ‘The Six Wives’, it’s been years since I saw it and ‘Elizabeth R’, so it might be worth catching as an adult. I don’t know if I’d consider it dated if in dated you mean that it was filmed using 2 Inch Quad Video Tape, rather than film and filmed mostly indoors (though I suspect it’s probably for other reasons). But it’s the sensibilty behind it, of adults making adult drama that can be compared with ‘The Tudors’. ‘Rome’ was a dire bore for me, great sexy women – cool, tick. But heavy-going nonsensical stuff. I realise, Bob, that it was a co-production but that’s just allows the beeb to be able to no take responsibility for lewd trash.
As for ‘I, Claudius’, I’m glad they don’t have vast exterior sets or outdoor crowds but suggested them. It’s Rome is of the mind, it paints pictures using actors, dialogue, story, lighting, sound effects, sets, costumes. It’s the way Norman Corwin created his great radio dramas. It’s holistic picture of Rome has only been equalled by, for me, ‘Spartacus’, ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ and maybe ‘Ben Hur’. ‘Gladiator’ creates a viscreal but very limited impression that is anything but deep. Had it been filmed using 35mm film, it would have been less intimate.
Allan, I’m completely with you on ‘Cranford’. The production team wanted to do two more episodes but they were cut back for budgetary reasons (though I’m sure that didn’t effect executive pay), but after it’s unqualified sucess, the want more.
They just don’t know when to leave something that was whole and complete. For instance, that last Christmas Special of ‘the Office’ that I found wanting had him turn around, show balls against his idealised friend and win the girl.
Perhaps I am a traditionalist in that I think it’s best to leave the past do new productions.
sorry for the typos, am very, very tired after kung fu training.
Kung Fu training Bobby??? I would have never thunk it!
Thunk it? Jesus, so much for English.
Bobby, with the new Doctor Who traditonalists would never like it because they wanted DW brought back on their terms or none at all. They think they own the show in the same way Trekkies do. It was brought back to be a show not for adults, but for children and the family, hence the timeslot. Some episodes are thus, quite childish, and aimed at kids, but there are enough episodes (often the ones written by the new supremo Steven Moffat – Blink especially, The Girl in the Fireplace, The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit, The Family of Blood, Silence in the Library) to keep adults happy. Yes, in an ideal world, I’d like it shown after 9pm and darker all the time, but it isn’t going to happen.
As for Only Fools, comparing it to Steptoe and Son, the greatest two hander in TV comedy history, is for me like comparing American Pie to Preston Sturges. It had a few funny moments in its long run, but it just regurgitated the same stuff year in year out. With Steptoe there was a real sense of tragedy in the comedy.
When I think of the great British comedies, I think of Hancock, Steptoe and Son, Dad’s Army (to a degree, for the cast, until Jimmy Beck died), Fawlty Towers, Blackadder, Father Ted (apart from the weaker series 2), The Office and The Thick of It. Then there’s a few like Till Death us do Part and Porridge just behind. Only Fools comes nowhere. In terms of beloved, yes, at the top, but remember us Brits love the mediocrity of reality TV, so I hardly see popularity as an accurate gauge of greatness.
Allan, well have to agree to disagree about ‘Only Fools and Horses’. I’d place it up there with the best of this countries sitcoms. And not just for casting, that’s just a part of the magic, but for the storylines too. For me, it’s next to ‘Yes Minister’ with a few others from the ’80s.
I don’t think that criticism of the new ‘Who’ is a reflection of some kind of blinkered traditionalist view. Nor for ‘Star Trek’ fans either. That doesn’t give them respect or integrity.
Say a comedy comes out tomorrow in the local cinema, it may be mildly amusing or tiresome, you watch it, and I watch it, whilest we can appreiate some virtues we have a historical grasp of past comedy triumphs to compare it to. Now a youngster watching it may think we are being traditionalist.
An example: I have a neice who had seen ‘You’ve got Mail’ and never seen ‘The Shop Around the Corner’, she liked the first because she had never experianced the 2nd and when she had, it blew her away. I was the traditionalist because of my life-long persuit of quality.
Star Trek was brilliant for it’s first year, then Gene Rottenbery, hack writer started to throw his weight around, composed lyric’s to Alex Courage’s theme that were never used but entitled him to half the income derived from future uses of that music, started to re-write (and always for the worse) well-respected SF writers, who virtually all left, and the less said about his laying the female members of the crew, the better. ‘The Next Gen’ was a bore for two years until Rottenberry took a back seat and a new producer revitalised the show, producing classics like ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’. Even then the show went soap-opera and a terrific 6th season was followed by a dire 7th. Very middling results overall but a worthy sucessor to the original. All the rest were heaps of rubbish.
Dr Who was good entertainment and family viewing for the 1st 12 years of its life and a magnificent creature to behold for 3 years (Tom Baker’s first three under Holmes/Hinchcliffe) and went down fast afterwards. The new show is kids stuff.
This is the retarded Aesthetic of the new shows founder Russel Davies, a fan of everything from Coronation Street (‘the wit and wisdom of that show – I watch it five times a week’) and who grades Shilpa Shetty’s victory in Celebrity Big Brother was ‘the most fascinating two weeks in television’s history -almost.’
“If you channel-hop on a Saturday night,’ he says, ‘you’re up against the big Light Entertainment shows, like Ant and Dec, with a shiny black floor and a huge audience. With background music behind everything. They’re phenomenally loud, those shows, and I believe that’s what draws an audience. So we decided to make Doctor Who really noisy.”
‘I was shouting: “Blow up Big Ben. Blow up Number 10. Let’s have a space ship. Not just 10 Daleks. Let’s have 1,000 Daleks. Coming out of the spaceship. Coming out of 10 spaceships.” That was one of the excitements of working on Doctor Who for me: big pictures.’
It’s like listening to demented ravings of a child with ADD having drunk coke.
Here are two reviews for ‘The Seeds of Dooms’ from the Golden Age that get to the core of why it’s not a traditionalist view but a connoisseur’s view:
This is by Nick Needham: “This time it was more difficult: an entire family to convert. Two middle-aged parents and five children from roughly 16 downwards. It must have been one of the children – the oldest boy Daniel, probably – who wanted to see a Dr Who video. But somehow everyone got mixed up in the matter, and I knew from the parents’ comments that they were expecting a cheap bit of laughable rubbish. Well, there were quite a few specimens that would have lived up to their cynical sneers;……I stubbornly went the opposite route, meditated on what might wipe those sneers off their hardened faces, and soon found myself marching forth with The Seeds of Doom clutched in my fist.
So the lights were doused and the action began. Not too auspiciously; the young teenage girl Hannah made sarcastic remarks about polystyrene snow. But as the pods began bursting, and the men began mutating and dying (“What happened to him?” – “Him? Oh, he died”), and Tom Baker’s Doctor began exuding one of his darkest, most driven performances, and Harrison Chase began almost stealing the show as nasty camp plant-worshipping villain extraordinaire, the sarcasms were over. By the time the RAF had obliterated the second Krynoid, and the lights went back on, the spell had woven its perfect mesmeric charm. The parents looked at me; the look said it all. They’d been anticipating something on the level of Dastardly and Muttley, and instead had got an eyeful of something more like ‘Quatermass and the Pit’. Everyone agreed that it had been very, very good, and demanded more. I promised ‘Genesis of the Daleks’ next time.
It’s slightly superfluous after the above to add that ‘The Seeds of Doom’ is one of my all-time favourites. Perhaps I’ll just mention the huge contribution made to the story by Geoffrey Burgon’s (‘Brideshead Revisted’ composer) wondrously sad, haunting, unearthly music. It’s a shame they didn’t make more use of him (‘Terror of the Zygons’ is I think the only other Dr Who adventure he graced). It’s not often you watch a TV show and deliberately watch the credits to see who composed the incidental music, which is what happened to me after one of the BBC Narnia adaptations – I was sure it was Geoffrey Burgon, and I was right.
I suppose my only regret is that somewhere out there a young man is still casting furtive and fearful glances under his bed at midnight to make sure there are no alien pods. Permanently screwed-up, and it’s all my fault.”
And here we have Steve Cassidy: “On the 28th February 1976 I was seven years old. My friend Kerry Bennion was holding a children’s party. I’ll always remember the date as he was born two days later than me. It was the usual children’s party with ‘pass-the-parcel’, jelly and ice cream and lots of shrieking marauding kids. But someone neglected to turn the television off in the corner and at exactly 5.48pm on that Saturday afternoon came the mysterious swirling music of Dr Who.
Most of the kids froze. Something registered in their brains – “this was a scary programme…” Some of them retreated to the kitchen but some, like me, stayed and watched – and we were scared sh******. After a while the exodus to the kitchen increased. Many, including me, coped with the Doctor and Sarah encountering the Krynoid in the night woods, some were brave enough to sit through the green tentacles attacking the cottage. But most had a breaking point – and mine was the plants strangling Sarah and Scorby in the ‘Green Cathedral’. Only the really hard kids sat through to the very end.
The Seeds of Doom has stayed with me for thirty years. Whenever during the eighties and nineties people used to scoff at Dr Who lamenting its rubber monster and crappy production design – I used to think of this adventure and how it used to terrify me. These people were missing out. Even today when I have owned the double-video for eight years it still has the power to thrill me. For you aren’t watching a cheap children’s programme here you are watching adult horror. And I use those words carefully. This adventure has some very mature themes – body pocession, carnivorous plants, mercenaries, greed and mendacity, flesh-eating – and the feeling all the way through that the Doctor and Sarah have bitten off more then they can chew. I always got the sense that they were outmatched in this one.”
Now, which of the two shows is more appealing. One is the creator talking absolute drival about how to attract an audience. The second driven by conceptual frameworks, superb scripting, tight direction, top tier casting and extraordinary production values.
Just because old shows and movies are being ransacked by creatively bankrupt bureaucrats, doesn’t mean that connoisseurs with life-long experiance can give them a free ride and not hold them to the highest standards set by previous generations. Otherwise we’ll have Mel Brooks ‘To Be or Not To Be’ lauded over Lubitsch’s.
There’s a difference to traditioinalism Bobby when it comes to a cult, something attended and revered by geeks. Old films don’t really have that, it’s something that came in with the rise of sci-fi TV from the days of Nigel Kneale, Rod Serling et al. Doctor Who may be childish compared to some of the original series, but the best episodes are worth it. Plus, shouldn’t there also be excellent entertainment for children. As for Davies, well I thank him for resurrecting it, but Moffat should be the boy to take it forward.
With films, I very rarely like modern works compared to their original counterparts. I’d go even further than you in that sound films were often inferior to their silent counterparts. Not even Korda’s classic The Thief of Bagdad could compare to Fairbanks’ version with Carl Davis’ Rimsky-Korsakov score. The silent version of Ben Hur is far better than the 1959 film, we could go on.
Your point on Lubitsch I wouldn’t disagree with, and comedy has died a death since the studio system because stars were cheaper to hold on contract on TV. There’s still the talent, I believe, but not the writers, that’s the problem. Jim Carrey showed in The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine that he could have been the equal of the masters of old with decent enough writers to give him material that wasn’t witless.
The best comedy has been on TV for the last 50 years, and it will always remain so. For the successors to Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, Fields, Laurel & Hardy, Hay, Tati et al, we have to look to Phil Silvers, Jackie Gleason, Lucille Ball, Tony Hancock, Ronnie Barker, the Pythons, Harry H.Corbett, Rowan Atkinson, Ricky Gervais and co whose creations rank alongside any of the greats.
As for Only Fools, I have nothing against David Jason, one of the finest comedy actors of the last 25 years, and worthy of every accolade bestowed on him, but Only Fools was mediocre, there’s no other way for it.
We’ll have to agree to differ.
Interesting debate aand some very good points, Allan.
Agree with you about tv taking comedy talent away from the big screen.
I much prefer Wyler’s ‘Ben Hur’ than the silent version which is sporadically alive but also ponderous. Wyler, a master director, always could evoke emotional engagement and I’ve found myself hooked into his version and viewings. I haven’t seen the silent ‘Thief of Bagdad’ in 20 years but have a vhs copy that I’ve been meaning to catch with.
Though I agree there are some geeks attached to certain shows, especially ‘Dr Who’ and ‘Star Trek’, ‘Twilight Zone’ and ‘The Outer Limits’ had a devoted, educated discerning appreciation and were ‘cults’ in the sense that they were mainstream hits.
My complaints and those of many like me, long-term watchers, about the new basterdised versions of beloved classics like Dr. Who and ‘Star Trek’ is that they have the sensibility of Irwin Allen’s ‘Lost in Space’. Intelligent SF and fantasy is largely dead on the small screen. Interesting that they are bringing back ‘The day of the Triffids’
I’ll check out those new ‘Who’s you mentioned.
Though I do wish they would trust writers to come up with original fare, rather than rely on tried and tested formulas.
Good heads up stuff here Sam.
I hadn’t heard of ‘Paranormal Activity’ but I see it’s in a few theaters in Chicago so I will see it in a few days. As many know around here it’s a cold day in hell when I miss a good horror film in the theater when I get a chance too. I think I may see ‘Bright Star’ this week too. It’s good to be back in Chicago where they play real films.
I saw ‘A Serious Man’ this week, and I share Sam’s adoration. I happen to prefer the Coens when they make philosophical character films (my two favorite films by them are–in order–’The Man Who Wasn’t There’, and ‘Barton Fink’) I think ‘A Serious Man’ definitely completes that triptych.
Also a local theater is having a N. Ray month so I saw ‘In a Lonely Place’ on the big screen. I’d seen it 5 times or so, but never like this.
Lots of other movies were watched, highlights include ‘The Last Days of Disco’, ‘Street of Shame’ (watched because I had just rewatched ‘Vivre sa Vie’ by Godard), ‘Lady Eve’ (what a script!) and a Sinead O’Connor live dvd with videos. I have also watched half of ‘Torso’ again in prep for the Olsen 70’s horror-a-thon.
Books, I’m about to finish a Nausea reread. It’s a personal favorite. I have also recently acquired a few Rainer Maria Rilke poetry books that have had me perplexed and amazed. A few portions of his ‘the Rose’ are some of the greatest lines and thoughts I’ve ever read. If posters are unfamiliar I can gladly transcribe some things.
Music, is ‘Let me Kiss You’ by Morrissey, specifically his performance on Jools Holland from about 2003 on youtube. Really amazing.
From there it’s been the three Slayer albums in order ‘Reign in Blood’, ‘South of Heaven’, and ‘Season in the Abyss’. Perhaps the greatest era heavy metal has ever seen from one singular band. All I can say is “Waaaaaaarrrrrrrr!”
My personal original script revision has also kept my spare moments busy. It’s about a third of the way through.
Jamie–
You had a banner week here, as great as any other here this week responding! Fantastic!
Well, I do think you will respond favorably to PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, but we’ll have to see. For sure the final 20 minutes I thought were terrifying. I look forward to your reaction to it and to BRIGHT STAR, which I thought was one of the year’s great films. I am thrilled tpo hear what you say about A SERIOUS MAN, and also the news that you saw IN A LONELY PLACE on the big screen. I am hardly surprised that you had the best viewing of all this time. For me it (and ON DANGEROUS GROUND) are Ray’s greatest films.
As far as THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO, STREET OF SHAME and THE LADY EVE, that’s all great stuff!
That poetry volume really sound sliek something to seek out, and I have always been a fan of Morrissey, though I will admit those others are not familiar to me (understandably).
Your regular activity and enthusiasm is simply astounding!
Sam are you unfamiliar with Rilke?
If so, I’ll have to type some of my favorites, as an English literature man (though Rilke is German I believe) this is something I think you’d adore. Honestly, anyone with half a heart would fall for this stuff though, it’s utter brilliance.
Glad you also like ‘On Dangerous Ground’ it’s criminally underrated.