Illustrator unknown
Author various
Introduction Alfred Hitchcock
Year 1974 (first published 1967)
Publisher Mayflower
ISBN 583-12262-0

MURDER
IS
NASTY…

Nice people don’t do it. Of course not. That’s why the world is so safe. That’s why we all live to a ripe old age. So keep smiling and above all don’t get nervous.

Because that master of murderous mayhem, Alfred Hitchcock, is about to introduce you to as convincing a crew of keen killers and mangled victims as you’d never care to meet.

INTRODUCTION by Alfred Hitchcock
THE CHINA COTTAGE by August Derleth
KILLED BY KINDNESS by Nedra Tyre
YOU CANT BE TOO CAREFUL by James Holding
MURDER DELAYED by Henry Slesar
PATTERN OF GUILT by Helen Nielsen
WEIGHTY PROBLEM by Duane Decker
WILLIE BETTS, BANKER by Mike Brett
BUS TO CHATTANOOGA by Jonathan Craig
THE FEEL OF A TRIGGER by Donald E. Westlake
CAPTIVE AUDIENCE by Jack Ritchie
ROOM TO LET by Hal Ellson
DOUBLE TROUBLE by Robert Edmond Alter
HEIST IN PIANISSIMO by Talmage Powell
WISH YOU WERE HERE by Richard Hardwick

Games Killers Play available on Amazon

Games Killers Play (full size)

“Once upon a time I lived in a double-decker bus, reg. JRR 404, better known as the Free Photographic Omnibus. She was my home, my travelling darkroom and gallery.

We were an unlikely couple; she with her crash gear box and temperamental ways, me with my bushy hair and homemade flares. But we got along okay and, during 1973 and ’74, we travelled about making a national portrait of the English. We covered 10,000 miles shooting pictures and giving them away.”

Amongst the towns Daniel visited was Fakenham, and some of the photos from his visit in 1974 were shown at the Fakenham Festival of Music and The Arts 1975. These have since been rediscovered and are now being shown again in the Parish Church, thanks to the Fakenham & District Community Archive.

The concept behind this project gave me a tingle down my spine when I first read about Daniel Meadows’ work a couple of years ago – little did I realise that Fakenham figured in his journey and that I would get the opportunity to see some of his photos first hand. This is a small exhibition but very well worth seeing, both from the point of view of seeing some people you might know (or indeed yourself if you were one of the lucky ones to be photographed) , but also from seeing a slice of English photographic history. A few quick snaps of the display of photographs is given below:

What’s the Connection?

The Conversation (1974) & The French Connection (1971)

The first on the list we’re these two films, The French Connection (1971) and The Conversation (1974). Firstly, my intrest was drawn to The Conversation as my final year assignment was all about Francis Ford Coppola and the films that he made from the mid-sixties to the early 1980′s. The Conversation was one of the only films that I hadn’t seen, and after seeing it on a borrowed DVD from the library, I knew I had to own it. Luckily a lot of the films from this era seem to be being re-released on Blu-Ray, especially some of the big named films like these two, and they’re fairly cheap as well, coming at under ten pounds on Amazon. That is unless you’re looking for Le Samourai by Jean-Pierre Melville, which was fifteen pounds for the blur-ray! Rip off. Anyway, the next film, The French Connection, came about when I read around the making of The Conversation. It was a film that I’ve mentioned in university before but have never actually seen, where I made a point that apparently the car chase scene didn’t have any sort of permissions from the city, the same thing that happened in Bullit, which I have seen. When reading up on The Conversation, I saw that Coppola had chosen Gene Hackman on the strength of his performance in The French Connection, and as I loved The Conversation, I was eager to see where Hackman had come from to make Coppola cast him as Harry Caul.

Charlie Don’t Surf!

Apocalypse Now (1979)

The other purchase I made was for Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979), the Vietnam war epic that nearly ruined his career, but turned out to be one of his most successful films. I loved writing about this film when I was doing my assignment, from everything to do with the production, even down to the newspaper rumours of who was going to be playing which part. I mean, for one example, could you imagine Jack Nicholson playing the part of Willard? I know I couldn’t. But, this film sums up everything that I wrote in that assignment, and because of that I seem to have a strange attachment to it. The version I’ve got is the Blu-Ray special edition, which again was cheap I think around fifteen pounds from Amazon, but had a ton of extra features.

You know when you’re a nerd when you get more excited about the special features than the actual film.

They include, the Redux version of the film, the feature length documentary on the making of the film by Eleanor Coppola, video interviews with Coppola and Martin sheen, never before seen screen tests, the original reading by Orson Welles of heart of darkness. I could go on and on and on. The list comes to about nine hours worth of extra footage and features. It even included some exclusive postcards with photographs taken by the on set photographer and a collectable book with some stills of Coppola’s notes on the script. I love things like this and I’m looking forward to putting it on tonight with the surround sound so that I can truly experience what Coppola intended.

All these things, the excitement about films and the small intricate details that comes with any film making process is what excites me and motivates me to write scripts. I have ideas all the time about films and scenes and scenarios, and maybe one day I can find a connection between a group of them and make a film about it. But, for now I’m happy to wallow in the glory of Coppola’s work. I’ll list some other buys below, but I thought I’d just go through the main ones for now. Thank God for Francis Ford Coppola.

Other buys:

Bonnie & Clyde

The Parallax View

The Last Detail

Bad Lands

Chinatown

The song “Kash Register” was off of their last album Out Of Gas But Still Burning. Hope you enjoy!

Now that Dee is flying directly from Los Angeles to Amsterdam

Dee sits on this plane right now

I am sitting here worried. It is a 10 hour flight, and all things can go wrong.

Luckily I am having this online flight tracking thing, so I can watch her flight in real time. I am seeing her plane is still in the air while I am typing this.

This song was a hit in Dee’s home country during the summer of 1974.

Albert Hammond was also a big star in West Germany, and I am astonished that he is virtually unknown in the States, where he has been living for over 40 years by now.

I still like him, and if you like him too, look here for a more recent acoustic version of another one of his big hits.

Audio  -  Video

Title  Without Love / Don’t Go Breaking My Heart
Label  Atlantic – Alvorada
Catalogue #  N-S-28-155
Format  7″ – 45 RPM
Year  1974
Country  Portugal

A  Without Love  [Carolyn Franklin, Ivy Joe Hunter]
B  Don’t Go Breaking My Heart  [Burt Bacharach, Hal David]

Deranged starts with a warning that everything in the film is based on real events and that the names have been changed to protect the innocent…. blah, blah,blah! Telling the story of a man that was raised by an overbearing religious fanatic mother that taught him that all women, aside from herself, were diseased whores out to corrupt him. Not allowed to socialize with others outside of school, Ed was bound to come out twisted. Ed, obsessed with his mother, devoted himself to her caretaking. When she suffered a stroke, he became even more so. Upon her death he boarded up the rooms that she used and left himself a small area in the house for his own use.

In the movie, Ed soon finds himself missing his mother terribly, and convinced himself that she was actually sleeping and not dead. His mother’s voice calls to him telling him to retrieve her and bring her back to their home. Exhuming the body, Ed does just that. Mother, having been buried for the better part of a year was not in prime shape, so Ed decides to make repairs to his mother. Using bits of fish skin and the like he fixes her up as best he can. Eventually, he studies taxidermy to improve his skills. Not content with animals, Ed exhumes bodies from the grave yard, taking parts of or whole bodies from fresh graves. Ed’s a ghoul.

Soon Ed ups the ante when he becomes smitten with a local bar owner and kidnaps her. Hoping she’ll be his wife, he introduces her to his mother and dinner guests: posed bodis of the peopl he stole from the graveyard. Playing along, she convinced him to release her bound hand, and attempts to escape… Sorry! Ed ain’t letting you go. Instead of a wedding, she’s dead now.

Ed keeps up his shit with no one suspecting him at all, until a girl keeping shop dissapears with signs of foul play. The last person in the shop was Ed and the local Sherriff goes off to Ed’s farm house to talk to him. That’s where they find the body of the girl and evidence of all of Ed’s grisly crimes. The movie then ends with a write up of Ed being found insane…

Okay, this is not a great movie, but I did find it interesting as I knew little of Ed Gein. There have been a lot of movies about Ed and based on him. Not many of the biopics are very good, but this is one of the first. Should you watch it? If your interested in the crimes of Ed, then yes.  If not, then don’t bother.

USA Release: 18 November 1974,   147 min. 

Director: John Cassavetes

Starring: Gena Rowlands, Peter Falk

Out of all John Cassavetes’ films, “A Woman Under The Influence” remains the most well known and successful, that granted both the director and leading actress Gena Rowlands Oscar Nominations. But like many films of the director, this movie is far away from the world of Hollywood mainstream movies, making it one of the great American independent films of all time.

It’s the story of an Italian American family, consisting of Nick (Peter Falk), Mabel (Gena Rowlands) and their three kids. Mabel behaves and is seen as “unusual”, but it’s clear from the beginning she’s mentally unstable. Rowlands in portraying this “loony” is legendary, as she reveals a character with an extremely fragile state of being yet a forceful, strong personality at the same time. After a series of episodes in which she as a protagonist makes questionable choices and acts in such a way that even the viewer by watching feels uncomfortable –with mixed feelings of sympathy and frustration– she has a mental breakdown, and is sent by her husband to a hospital for six months. When she returns, the suspense kills the audience: It’s still not clear if she’s better or not.

Visually, it’s a typical Cassavetes film: long takes and scenes, containing long, every-day life discussions that give the atmosphere an authenticity and realism Hollywood movies never have done and never will replicate. Cassavetes is not interested in fantasies, just in real life and problems, and, as he’s said himself, in making his audience love his characters as if they were family members, so that the characters’ final destiny in the movie would impact the viewer more strongly.

“A Woman Under The Influence” is Psychological Drama at its most effective, swinging from domestically located bursts of emotion, to seemingly empty moments where nothing dramatic happens: as a matter of fact, the magic of Cassavetes lies also in the fact that he in most of the film was able to normalize Mabel’s condition without dramatizing it or criticizing it (to notice the fact that her madness is not given any particular label) but embracing it with affection and looking at it as ordinary, like the husband and kids were used to doing.

Often a bit underrated, “A Woman Under The Influence” is nothing less than a masterpiece and a seminal piece of work for American cinema. The breathtaking performances from Peter Falk and especially from Gena Rowlands are unforgettable, as well as Cassavetes’ directing style, particularly concerning his close-ups, authentic portraits of human suffering.

* * * * 1/2

1974
WOAI-AM radio is sold by Avco Broadcasting Corp. to Clear Channel Communications.

1984
The Cody branch of the San Antonio Public Library system opens for business.

1974

Actress (and possibly one of the most beautiful people on the planet) Penelope Cruz is born in Madrid, Spain.

Yes, not entirely historic, but I really do love this woman!

She’s amazing in Vicky Christina Barcelona, Vanilla Sky, Volver and incredibly sexy in musical Nine.

Vicky Christina Barcelona (Woody Allen; 2008)

Vanilla Sky (Cameron Crowe; 2001)

Volver (Pedro Almodóvar; 2006)

Nine (Rob Marshall; 2009)

Definitely in my ‘Top Ten Women I’d Turn For’ list… don’t judge

There is a long-term unspoken conspiracy afoot, one in which nearly all of us are participating, in which we are told (and we buy it, by and large) that economic growth has gained at a rate of 2.5%, or l.5 %, not at all, etc.; comparing quarters, the notes of quarterly analysts, contrasts with past quarters and years, the Gilded Age, the Great Depression, Recession, or most anything the statisticians can pull out of the hat which may be correlative.  Just in the past few days we have been told that our first quarter economic growth was better than our last quarter of last year.

 Are the measurements for economic growth or lack of it valid, and if so, do they have application to some of us, all of us, or only a given sector or sectors of the economy? That is the question.

We have been conditioned to believe that economic growth has general application across the board and that everyone is better off as a result. The casual reader (almost all of us) will read that the economy has grown by X % and will assume that he or she is a beneficiary of such growth; that such positive news means more employment, demand in the marketplace, higher stock values, more dividends, a fairer sharing of a healthier economy’s bounties – all the good things associated with “growth.” Unfortunately, when you break down “growth” as it affects individuals since circa 1974, such is not the case, hence the question of “Growth? For whom?” treated here.

My take on this situation is that in pre-1974 American economic history dating back to WW II there was a positive across-the-board general application of economic growth to virtually all sectors of the American economy. Since about that time (the experts disagree on specifics), when the corporate and financial sectors first began to hog and not share the productivity gains of the economy with labor and other segments of the economy (thus ending the rise of the postwar middle class aside from a short term bubble adventure or two here or there), so-called “economic growth” numbers have had little general application to the lives of real people (not Citizens United “people” – who are now prospering).

 Such numbers measure the economic “growth” of the corporate and financial sectors; they have little connection with the lives and fortunes of everyday Americans; and with globalization of production and services by multinational corporations, our domestic stock market is measuring to a considerable extent the performance of overseas economies, not ours. The Dow and S&P do not measure the domestic economy for real people who live with the ups and downs of trying to survive in this game rigged for the rich and corporate class. We should therefore look at “economic growth” numbers with a jaundiced eye.

Evidence? Millions of wait people in “tipped” employment continue to make $2.13 an hour, a number that has not changed for years. Tell those waitresses all about “economic growth” and how it measures their financial lives during these inflationary times. Tell the long-term unemployed (whose jobs were sent to China and elsewhere and whose unemployment compensation checks have run out) that we are having “economic growth.” Or to those who lost their homes as a result of Wall Street shenanigans in 2008, or to those who had to take bankruptcy because of astronomical medical bills.

With a Dow and corporate cash at historic levels and the rest of us living in an economy of near recession, it is clear that “economic growth” (when unshared) is a mirage.  GERALD  E

Is there a sadder song in existence than “Withered and Died”? It’s just one big fucking bummer from beginning to end. Even the one line that refers to happiness, “once I was bending the tops of the trees,” is sad, because as beautiful as that image is, you know “once” has to be followed up with “then.” That verse that ends with “he’s gone with the rest, my dreams have withered and died.” Ugh.

But man, this song is gorgeous. Richard Thompson has a knack for writing songs that sound traditional (another is “Dimming of the Day”), making intimate stories sound like universally known hymns. In some ways, the concept behind “Withered and Died,” with its timeless story of someone being screwed over by someone they love, is universally known, especially in the world of pop music.

Linda Thompson–at the time, Richard’s wife–sells this song by underselling it. She sounds despondent but not upset, as if the shock of heartbreak has worn off (or has just begun). How this song can really only have (by design) that one story, that one character with a limited point of view, and succeed, I don’t understand. But it works.

(FIG.1) Ecco il telescopio di Arecibo, un enorme parabola sormontata da un antenna di 900 tonnellate sorretta da tre enormi pilastri di cemento armato. L’ideale per “scrutare” l’Universo…

Chiaramente, il messaggio inviato (FIG.2) non poteva essere creato sulla falsa riga delle letterine a Babbo Natale… Infatti esso conteneva un sacco di informazioni, dai numeri da 1 a 10 a delle immagini stilizzate del radiotelescopio, passando per la forma del DNA umano. Tutto scritto in una lunga serie di 1 e 0 combinati assieme: il codice binario. Ci volle molto per trasmetterlo? No, poco più di tre minuti.

(FIG.2) Il messaggio, tradotto dal codice binario, dava origine ad un immagine bitmap, quella che vedete sopra riportata. In pratica, questa è “l‘interfaccia grafica” del messaggio scritto in “riga di comando“. Un modo più semplice di rappresentare lo stesso concetto.

Immagino che tutti vi starete chiedendo: “Ma gli alieni (se esistono…) lo hanno letto? Ci hanno dato una risposta o è stato solo un totale fallimento?” Dare una risposta non è così semplice, ma un evento del 2001 ci da un indizio, a mio vedere, inequivocabile, del fatto che gli alieni abbiano letto il messaggio e ci abbiano anche risposto.

Accanto al SETI, nel Regno Unito, apparve un gigantesco cerchio nel grano (FIG.3) praticamente identico al messaggio che gli avevamo inviato nel 1974. Non uguale, ma simile: lo hanno voluto modificare? Ci hanno dato la loro versione? Chissà…

(FIG.3) Il Crop Cicle del Regno Unito, del tutto simile al messaggio che gli avevamo inviato.

Mettendo assieme gli schemi dei due messaggi notiamo piccole ma signifative differenze. La più sorprendente, il corpo con l’aggiunta del volto. Che dire? A sinistra abbiamo lo schema di ciò che scrivemmo noi, a destra il messaggio di risposta. A voi i commenti:

L’idea che degli extraterrestri ci abbiano dato conferma della loro esistenza mi fa venire i brividi, e non riesco a fare a meno di pensare alle conseguenze che ciò potrebbe portare (sia positive sia negative…). Tuttavia, se volete andare molto più a fondo riguardo a ciò che abbiamo appena discusso e analizzato, recatevi su questo sito (purtroppo solo in Inglese): http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread340541/pg1

Extraterrestri e religione: nei testi antichi riportati i primi grandi avvistamenti?

Ringrazio Pasquale per l’idea del radiotelescopio…

This is poetry for Drama Queens like me! Nothing is too bombastic, nothing is too much over the top! No, here we are going way over the top, and it just feels appropriate.

The loss of a love is put into equivalence to our solar system’s destruction.
Yes, nothing less would do. Losing the one you love is the apocalypse, and to you it is as if the sun is dying.

I am jealous that I haven’t written this piece!
I wished I could write like this!

Keinen Tag, der vergangen ist,
holst Du jemals zurück.
(No passed day you’ll ever get back)
Doch gilt das, was für vieles gilt,
auch für Liebe und Glück?
(But what might be right for many things,
is that also true for love and happiness?)

Und was wird aus einer verlorenen Liebe,
gibt es ein neues Glück?
(And what will become of a lost love,
will there be new happiness?)
Oder kommt sie als neugeborene Liebe
eines Tag’s zurück in Dein Leben?
(Or will it return as newborn love
into your life one day?)
Muß verlorene Liebe verloren bleiben?
(Does a lost love have to remain lost?)

Und was wird aus einem gebrochenen Herzen,
wird es noch einmal froh?
(And what will become of a broken heart,
will it become glad once again?)
Oder muß es gleich einer welkenden Blume
immerzu nach Liebe sich sehnen?
(Or must it, just like a withering flower,
yearn for love all the time?)
Ohne Hoffnung, sie jemals neu zu finden?
(Without any hope of finding new love ever again?)

Wenn der Wind seinen Traum Dir singt,
dann gib acht, hör ihm zu!
(When the wind is singing its dream to you,
then pay attention, listen!)
Hörst Du nicht, wie die Rose spricht?
(Don’t you hear the rose talking?)
Sie kann weinen wie Du.
(It can cry just as you can)

Und was wird aus einer verlorenen Liebe…
(And what will become of a lost love…)

Und was wird aus all den versunkenen Schiffen,
(And what will become of the sunken ships)
goldbeladen im Meer,
(loaded up with gold laying in the ocean)
die so lange schon in verwunschenen Riffen
aus der Nacht ohne Morgen sich fragen,
(in cursed riffs for so long,
wondering through morningless nights)
hat Unendlichkeit denn nie ein Ende?
(Does Eternity never end?)

Und was wird aus einer sterbenden Sonne?
(And what becomes of a dying sun?)
Hat sie Angst vor der Nacht,
(is it afraid of the night)
wenn zum letzen Mal noch der Reigen der Sterne
(when for the final time the ring of stars)
sie umtanzt, und schweigend von ferne
(is dancing around it, and silently from far)
Götter ihre Dämmerung erwarten?
(Gods are awaiting their twilight?)

How does this relate to me today?
Why is this the video of this day?

I am feeling my love for Dee slowly dying, and I am so sad about that.

It was such a beautiful feeling. It was so powerful, so magickal, so wonderful. But love has to be fed, has to be nurtured. And Dee is starving me and my love.

She has hurt me for no good reason. I think I was better off without being in love. I have not planned this, I have never decided to fall in love. It just happened to me. I never wanted this.

My life was uneventful and boring, but at least it was without pain. Maybe I will get back to that soon. To that boring, uneventful life, I mean.

Dear Uncle Fritz

I live in a small town called Wingham in countryside New South Wales and I am really bored. Can you help me?

Solution

Dear Trent

Thank you for your email.

I am assuming you have exhausted all the conventional avenues available to you (drink driving, recreational drug taking, bestiality) so I have sent the following letter to a Hollywood star in the hope that he will fill the void for not only you, but everyone in your town. You’re most welcome:

Dear Willard

May I call you that? I hope so. If it is not okay then I apologise unreservedly.

Anyway, let me get straight to the point. I am writing to you on behalf of a small town in Australia called Wingham.

Willard, the youth here are dying of boredom. I don’t know if you have ever been to countryside Australia but it can be, culturally at least, bleak. If you need an image for your mind’s eye, think back to 1974.

Willard, I am writing to you in the hope that you might find room in your busy schedule to perform some of your greatest hits at one of the Wingham’s several adequate venues (the Wingham Plaza, the Australian Hotel, Central Park – it’d be like home).

I have no money to offer you; I’m confident the residents don’t either. However, what I can offer you is access to a so-far untapped market. I am certain that the town’s older folk will never have heard of you and the young folk will likely be oblivious to your existence as well. Those in between will be aficionados but they have all fled to the bright lights of the city. I have no doubt in my mind they would return home for such and extravaganza. Think of the message Willard:

Will Smith: bringing families together through rap.

That’s brilliant.

I shall get the ball rolling by contacting the relevant authorities.

And on a personal note, I am not exaggerating when I say I love your work. I even enjoyed Wild, Wild, West and I once slapped my nephew for referring to you as the French Prince of Bell-End. He is a bi-sexual VJ. Says it all, really.

Warm Regards

Fritz Hammond

(Uncle Fritz)

Fingers crossed, eh, Trent.

Getty Images

The tradition that is known as the NFL Draft came into existence in 1936.  The first player ever taken in the NFL Draft was Running Back Jay Berwanger.  The Philadelphia Eagles drafted Berwanger, unfortunately he would never play a pro football game due to salary disputes with multiple teams

Since then the NFL Draft has involved thousands of players, many of which have gone on to become all time greats.  Many more however went on to have careers that would earn them the dubious distinction of being called a “Draft Bust”.  The most coveted position for any team is the first overall pick.  The team that holds this position is usually in desperate need of a break out rookie that can turn their franchise around.  There is only one chance for first overall greatness every year.

There have been only 77 men who can call themselves the first overall pick in the NFL draft.  The positions picked the most may not surprise you but the positions that were picked the least  might shock you.

The quarterback position has the title of the most popular first overall pick in draft history.  Twenty seven QBs have been nabbed by teams with the most coveted draft spot.  Ten of those twenty seven became pro bowl players, names like Eli Manning (2004), Peyton Manning (1998), Drew Bledsoe (1993) and Vinny Testaverde (1987) just to name a few.  Only Troy Aikman (1989), John Elway (1983) and Terry Bradshaw (1970) had careers so great they were inducted into the Hall Of Fame.

Twenty five Running Backs have been picked first overall.  Seven of them became Pro Bowlers including Bo Jackson (1986), Billy Sims (1980) and Tucker Frederickson (1965).  The Running Backs hold the record of most Hall Of Fame inductees with five.  Running Back Bill Dudley (1942) was the first player at any position drafted first overall to become a Hall Of Famer.  The most recent Running Back to be inducted into the Hall Of Fame is Earl Campbell (1978) who was drafted by the Houston Oilers.

Defensive End’s have also been a very popular choice with eleven picked first overall.  Defensive Ends Mario Williams (2006), Ed “Too Tall” Jones (1974), Dave Parks (1964) and Leon Hart (1950) were all voted to the Pro Bowl.  Bruce Smith (1985) and Lee Roy Selmon (1976) were the only Defensive End’s to be inducted into the Hall Of Fame.

Positions that were drafted the least with the top pick are Defensive Tackle (4), Line Backer (3), Offensive Tackle (3), Center (2) and Wide Receiver (2).  Eight different positions have all seen the top choice.  Wide Receiver, Defensive Tackle and Line Backer are the only positions to never have a first overall player reach the Hall Of Fame.

A few of the players drafted in the last decade will more than likely find a home in the Hall Of Fame.  As of now the first overall pick has only been a future Hall Of Famer twelve of the seventy seven times.  Who knows, we might see the next great NFL player drafted with the first pick tonight in the 2013 NFL Draft.