Whoever Says the Truth Shall Die (Bregstein, 1981)

A nice, concise documentary on the life and artistry of Pier Paolo Pasolini. The film examines his work, why he was so controversial, the reputation he held, his masochistic tendencies and his still unresolved murder through the eyes of his friends and colleagues. To think that there are still no solid answers outside of how he was killed is pretty disturbing, calling forth some serious questions of conspiracy. It’s nothing spectacularly crafted, nor does it really get too into details, but it paints an interesting enough portrait of a very important artist.

Zombieland (Fleischer, 2009)

Zombieland covers no new ground. It is exactly as it appears, perhaps a bit less memorable than one would hope. It clumsily attempts to balance whimsy in the face of an apocalypse with desperate, strained bits of sentiment regarding an all-too-typical teen love story and each all-too-typical character’s backstory. The film maintains a decent pace, and is never boring, which is about what I expected. The highlights being the the rules system and the brilliant Bill Murray cameo. Harrelson’s character becomes an engaging “sacrificial man” toward the end, giving the film some artistic credibility.

Singin’ in the Rain (Kelly/Donen, 1952)

After having ignored this film for so long due to my lack of interest in musicals, I was finally coaxed into watching it for a film rec thread on Rotten Tomatoes. I’m now glad I was. I didn’t expect to enjoy it as much as I did. Thanks to some genuinely funny dialogue, inspired musical segments, and playful homage and satire, Singin’ in the Rain was a very easy watch. Top praise goes to Kelly’s sidekick in the film, Cosmo, played by Donald O’Connor, for his boyish smile and always amusing performance.

1948: The Three Musketeers di George Sidney

Una stagione cinematografica poco promettente questa in corso. Meglio allora rifugiarsi nella sicurezza di un grande classico…

Uno dei migliori prodotti che la Mecca del cinema abbia mai realizzato. Avventura, romanticismo, divertimento, ritmo a profusione. E che colori, che scenografie, che costumi…! Hollywood al meglio!
E che dire del cast? Favoloso, ineguagliabile… Insuperato e insuperabile.

Riporto la recensione di Pino Farinotti che condivido in pieno (e come non farlo?): È forse la più famosa storia d’avventura del mondo insieme a Robin Hood, e naturalmente il cinema ne ha preso più volte possesso. Fra tutte le edizioni questa è la più preziosa e importante, tradizionale: nessun “D’Artagnan” è stato all’altezza di Gene Kelly, nessuna “Milady” lo è stata di Lana Turner e così via…
Affidato alla regia di George Sidney, specialista di musical, il film si vale di una struttura armoniosa nei tempi e nell’equilibrio dei caratteri: a Kelly, esuberante e irresistibile, si contrappone Heflin, un po’ drammatico; per una Lana Turner, cupa e maledetta, c’è Morgan, che fa un re maldestro e simpatico che quasi sembra uscire da un film musicale.
Successivamente, come detto, il grande romanzo di Dumas ha ispirato altri film. Ricordiamo la versione dell’inglese Richard Lester, regista legato alla pratica della smitizzazione. Convinto com’è che gli eroi siano improbabili e noiosi e che i vigliacchi e i cialtroni debbano essere i veri protagonisti, Lester ha capovolto tutto, tramandandoci una versione inutile e inopportuna. Fortuna che Lester passa e… Kelly rimane. Una menzione per il più recente “Tre moschettieri”, realizzato dalla Disney, edizione dimenticabile, con attori inadeguati. I veri moschettieri sono quelli della MGM, del 1948.

Da parte sua, ecco quanto scrive Alex Bardine: George Sidney confeziona nel 1948 questo classico di cappa e spada in perfetto stile hollywoodiano. Si tratta della versione più celebre del romanzo di Alexandre Dumas, e sicuramente della più aderente allo spirito avventuroso e favolistico del libro, grazie alla puntuale sceneggiatura di Robert Ardrey. Sidney, noto per diverse regie di musical, costruisce un film che fa della leggerezza il suo punto forte, e utilizza al meglio i costumi e le scenografie, rutilanti di colori, per far emergere l’entusiasmo dell’avventura epica.
Il film può essere considerato, a giusta ragione, una fresca e ariosa commedia musicale senza musica, e Sidney sfrutta la sua esperienza nei musical per tratteggiare duelli con la precisione di vere e proprie coreografie…  Perfetto il super cast in stile vecchia Hollywood, in cui spicca il grande Gene Kelly. Il ballerino di “Cantando sotto la pioggia” si cala nei numerosi duelli con l’eleganza e la precisione del danzatore, regalandoci un D’Artagnan mai così leggero. Il suo sguardo ironico attraversa divertito e divertente tutto il film da vero protagonista…

Da sottolineare che questo film, a differenza di altri, contiene l’intero romanzo e non solo la prima parte (quella riguardante i diamanti della regina).

p.s.

Inconcepibile che in Italia non esista il DVD di questo che da tutta la critica è considerato il capolavoro assoluto nel suo genere!

scheda

Singin’ in the Rain, 1952 – Direção: Gene Kelly, Stanley Donen – Elenco:Gene Kelly,Debbie Reynolds,Donald O’Connor.

Clássico do mundo dos musicais, do qual eu nunca tinha visto. É estranho ser cinéfilo e dizer que nunca tinha visto essa bagaça, eu sei, mas é a realidade. Enfim, decidi então meter a cara na tela e ver o que o filme podia ser. Muito comentado, eu não esperava muito já, o filme é falado e mais falado em todos os cantos onde se fala sobre cinema, mas principalmente pelo fato de ter a cena da musica que intitula o filme. Sendo honesto, eu esperava desde já, um musical tosco e sem nada a oferecer a não ser a tão falada cena. Um dos maiores enganos que cometi em toda minha vida foi ter pensado isso, pois o filme arregaça em tudo!

O começo é maravilhoso. Tem uma “auto-introdução’ dentro da trama que coloca o personagem de Geny Kelly apresentando sua história e de seu fiel parceiro, tudo na maio metalinguagem possível. Ele conta uma versão e na tela aparece a real versão, que me fez rir pra caramba. Essa foi desde já a característica que mais gostei no filme e que me fez ter um carinho maio por ele: o humor. Tiradas ácidas e super inteligentes me fizeram rir de um filme que eu achava ser ou um drama com musicas chatas, ou um romance com musicas chatas.

Falando nas melhores características, uma delas é a desmistificação dos romances. Praquela época, época de ouro de filmes classicamente românticos com historinhas já batidas e com quase os mesmos personagens, cantando na chuva traz duas formas de romance meio diferentes praqueles tempos: Um “não-romance” descarado e um romance indireto.

O primeiro citado, gira em torno do personagem de Gene Kelly e sua parceira de filmes. Como na época em que o filme se passa eles atuavam em filmes mudos muito famosos era natural que fossem ovacionados por uma centena de fãs, que de fato acontece. Só que os fãs não sabiam que a sua queridinha protagonista tinha uma voz cruel de se ouvir até mesmo em pensamento, o que é descoberto com a entrada de filmes falados. A moça não sente nada, inclusive amor, só que é uma alienada clássica e acredita em revistas que falam coisas que nem ela mesma fez e mesmo assim acredita, como ter um romance com o personagem de Gene. Só por estar em tablóides e revistas ela acredita que ele a ama e vice-versa. Só que o homem odeia a moça e faz de tudo pra ela perceber isso. É extremamente grosso, insulta ela quase o tempo todo e mesmo assim não é o bastante. Ma em entrelinhas ele manda ela “se fuder” quase que em toda cena em que estão juntos. Maravilhosamente divertido isso.

O segundo citado é o romance principal, onde o astro do cinema mudo conhece uma moça ao fugir de fãs que o rasgam todo (suas roupas). Ao notar que ela não sabe quem ele é, não liga pro que ele faz e não se apaixona por ele de primeira logicamente ele se derrete por ela, mesmo que na primeira vez que tenham se visto ele, por teimosia, tenha “fingido’ odiá-la e ate chega a maltratá-la. Tai, eles tão longe de ser perfeitos , mas são humanos e eu prefiro muito mais romances assim do que os “glamurados” que vinham em montes daquela época.

Os números musicais são ótimos, mas não alcançam a perfeição animada que deveriam. Talvez isso não tenha me agradado tanto, até porque é um musical onde eu preferi a comédia do que os números musicais. Não que os números não sejam bons, só não são tão bons quanto eu imaginava ou dentro do que acreditei ser a proposta da película.

Isso não tira o mérito do filme de ter cenas clássicas e eternas. Pra começar o filme já é lindo só por discutir questões cinematográficas como a chegada do áudio no cinema e os problemas que alguns estúdios tiveram ao implantar tal sistema. A maneira com que os diretores tratam isso é maravilhosa, sem nunca discutir de uma forma maçante ou direta de mais, eles discutem em torno do que p filme propões, como o humor, e por isso criam nesses momentos algumas das melhores cenas do filme como a primeira exibição do filme deles com áudio.

Sem mais delongas, uma das melhores comédias que vi de sua época com um hino cantado até por Alex em Laranja Mecânica quanto pelo personagem confundido em intriga internacional(neste caso,assobiado) está aqui um dos melhores musicais da história com louvor e sem exagero dos fãs que o elevam.

4.5/5

Gene Kelly is Singin' in the Rain

I’ve now watched two (Singin’ in the Rain, West Side Story) of the “Classic” musicals of Hollywood and I have to say that Singin’ in the Rain would have to be my favorite of those two. This film has often been considered one of the more cheery films of all time and I would have to agree with that statement. The film is so sugar-coated with happiness that it’s hard not to keep a smile all the way through. The film even topped AFI’s list of greatest musicals of all time. I really can’t argue with that placement. I haven’t watched a musical I’ve enjoyed more than Singin’ in the Rain.

The film carries itself on the choreography and music of the film relying on quick tap-dancing and happy musical moments. Most notably the songs for Singin’ in the Rain and Make em Laugh had me smiling the most. There were some musical moments in the film though that I felt were a little long in spots such as the Broadway one which I felt was a about a minute too-long. The finest part of this film though and arguably the most memorable part is Gene Kelly’s dance in the rain. There is such a classic feel to that scene that I’m sure the audiences in 1952 were thinking they were watching something fantastic. Kelly dances around in the rain striking poses every other second whilst twirling his umbrella and Singing his song. The film truly delivered a classic moment with that scene and it’s arguably one of the greatest pieces of cinema ever.

I can’t really give the film full marks though even though I did like it quite a bit. I’m still new to the musical world and it’s still a little overbearing to have a film based almost entirely of music. It’s something that I’m still getting used to and when I do get a sense of that type of cinema I think I will revisit this film. Singin’ in the Rain is undboutebly the best Musical film I’ve ever seen and would probably crack my top 100 of all time if I were to re-do my list. There is just something magical about this film that is hard to grasp and honestly hard to explain. I guess it’s the inherit happiness that exudes from this film that never fails to put a smile on the viewer’s face. It’s really a very clever film showcasing what is marvelous about the musical and it’s one film everyone should see wether you love musicals or not. Singin’ in the Rain is about as artistic a film of the musical genre can get in my opinion. It works almost perfectly from beginning to end. The actors are great, the musical numbers are nearly perfect and the entire tone of the film works extremely well. There is something really magical about this film and it’s hard to put a finger on it.

Even now as I’m sitting here typing this review I think that I will re-watch this film very soon. It’s one that I think will stick with me and honestly carve it’s way into my favorite films. Singin’ in the Rain does exactly what it sets out to do and a lot more, and that’s something I can’t really say for tons of films. It’s certainly one of a kind.

9.5/10

-David Jones (Reservoir Dog)

Nu prea am ce să zic despre secvenţele astea. Doar că sunt adorable şi că le-am găsit aseară lucrând la emisiune.

şi, desigur, gene kelly.

I was sick all day yesterday and spent most of the day in bed.  The Swine Flu vaccination is a doozy!  I got it because I have asthma and my doctor recommends that I get vaccinated for flu every year, but the regular flu vaccine is a day in the park in comparison to Swine Flu.  My arm felt like it had been punched by David Haye and I had zero energy.

I decided after sleeping all day that all I could do in the evening was watch a movie.  I don’t know if it’s true for everyone, but I have films that always make me feel a bit happier, that cheer me up.  Comfort viewing if you will!  So yesterday I watched one of my favourites, Singing in the Rain.  It stars Gene Kelly who is probably my all time biggest movie star crush.  As well as being very handsome he is probably one of the best dancers ever captured on film and he makes me swoon with scenes like this (or maybe that’s the Swine Flu…):

In addition to Gene’s genius, the movie is notable for the hilarious performance of Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont, a silent movie actress who is having difficulty in the new era of the “talkie”, as can be seen here:

Although the movie didn’t make me feel 100% better, it certainly helped!  Singin’ in the Rain is the perfect Sunday afternoon movie so make sure you rent it soon if you’ve never seen it.

Nora L. Lapitan-American Society of Agronomy Fellow

Nora L. Lapitan is a professor and geneticist in the Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, and the Cell and Molecular Biology Program at Colorado State University. She received a B.S. from University of the Philippines and M.S. and Ph.D. from Kansas State University. Her program focuses on the application of genomics to improvement of cereal crops. She is a CSSA Fellow, has served as associate editor for Crop Science and has been active in CSSA, Entomological Society of America, and Plant and Animal Genome Conferences.

Eugene F. Kelly-Soil Science Society of America Fellow

Eugene F. (Gene) Kelly is a professor of Pedology in the Department of Soil and Crop Sciences and associate director for research in the School of Global Environmental Sustainability at Colorado State University. Dr. Kelly received a B.S. and M.S. from Colorado State University and a Ph.D. from University of California-Berkeley. His program focuses mainly on Pedology and biogeochemistry. He serves as an associate editor for Geoderma, and is active in the Ecological and Geological Societies of America.

Austin Case-CSSA Golden Opportunity Scholar

Austin Case is an undergraduate at Colorado State University majoring in soil and crop sciences, with a concentration in plant biotechnology, genetics, and breeding. Case has been an active member of the Agronomy Club and is currently serving as the organization’s treasurer. He plans to attend graduate school for plant breeding and genetics and hopes to research crop improvement methods.

Kendall DeJonge-Division S-6 Graduate Student Award
(Soil and Water Management and Conservation)

The S-6 Graduate Student Award is presented each year to a graduate student whose thesis research and graduate responsibilities utilize creative approaches to gain understanding and develop solutions for soil and water conservation and management problems. This year, Kendall DeJonge, was selected from a group of eight other excellent candidates.

Good morning!

Esta sí es una de mis cuatro películas favoritas, con lo que me cuesta hacer listas, pero tiene el puesto asegurado. Adoro el musical y, para mí, este es el mejor de todos los tiempos. Es genial. Todo es genial. Y adoro a Gene Kelly, que no tiene ni punto de comparación con el anteriormente comentado como duerme ovejas Fred Astaire. Y ya está, para qué voy a decir más.

A few weeks ago the Tampa Bay Lightning took part in a game of “Naked Shootout”. Every time a player failed to score, they were required to take off a piece of equipment. Take a look:

Unfortunately for Martin St. Louis, he wasn’t doing so well. Of course, one man’s misfortune is another person’s good luck, and we have the video to prove it.

Contrary to what you might think, my favorite part is NOT when St. Louis gets about 4 seconds away from removing his shirt. Rather, it’s about halfway through, when poor St. Louis has removed his skates.

The camera follows his feet closely as he heads to the blue line to begin. And there, at 2:45, he did something that made me squeal with delight. Take another look, and see if you can figure it out.

Any luck? Well just in case you didn’t, I’ll tell you.

He went into first position.

I happen to be a ballet nut, so when I saw Martin St. Louis go into a perfect first position, I was extremely pleased.

For those of you that know nothing about ballet, let me explain.

“Turning Out” is when you twist your legs from the hip, so your toes are quite literally turned out. Your knees must remain in line with your toes, and the entire leg should be turned out. For an example, see the picture below.

Nina Ananiashvili and her daughter curtsey for the audience.

The legs circled in red are turned out, while the legs are circled in purple are parallel.

(L to R: Helene Ananiashvili, Nina Ananiashvili, Veronika Part, Corps dancer)

Anyway, after seeing St. Louis’ first position, I decided to see what else I could find.

Lo and behold, I found this:

Martin St. Louis has really good turn out and it makes me jealous.

At which point I realized something that was a mix of shocking, amazing, and irritating.

Martin St. Louis has better turn out than me.

I did a little more research on St. Louis. At 5’9” he’s only two inches taller than Mikhail Baryshnikov, generally regarded as one of the best male ballet dancers ever.

And then this was posted on the Twitter feed for the Tampa Bay Lightning (@TBLightning):

I'd hide my face too if I was being photographed and couldn't compete with St. Louis' calves.

Holy gluteus maximus and thighs, Batman! Forget hockey. Throw St. Louis a pair of tights and let him rip. He was beginning to remind me of my current favorite dancer, Herman Cornejo, a principal dancer with American Ballet Theater.

Those thighs looking familiar to anyone?

While St. Louis’ body type reminds me of Cornejo, his movements remind me, naturally, of a different, more famous dancer- the dashing Gene Kelly of Singin’ in the Rain fame.

If you didn't know this was Gene Kelly you just broke my heart into several tiny pieces.

Why do St. Louis’ movements “naturally” remind me of Kelly?

I’m glad you asked.

Kelly, born to a Canadian father, grew up playing hockey in the winters and played with a semi-professional team at fifteen. In addition to hockey, he played baseball and football, yet was so well-trained in ballet that he was invited to join the Ballet Russes, a very famous ballet company that is currently celebrating its 100th anniversary.

Kelly actually wanted to be a professional baseball player. He hadn’t originally wanted to take dance lessons, but when he realized girls liked a boy who could dance, he decided to stick with it.

Much of what made his style of dance so popular was its athleticism. He didn’t dance in the ballroom style made famous by Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, or in a traditionally balletic manner. In fact, his posture when he danced –low to the ground with his legs wide apart- was a hold over from his years in hockey. This athleticism can be clearly seen in a famous Singin’ in the Rain number “Moses Supposes”. When compared to the style of his co-star Donald O’Connor it is even more obvious.
(O’Connor is in the blue sweater, Kelly is in the brown)

After watching, it’s apparent just how much more athletic Kelly’s style is. O’Connor’s movements are light and floaty, while Kelly taps very firmly into the ground. At 1:48 when they tap while walking forward, you can easily see Kelly’s knees bending more. At 2:16 Kelly is in such a deep bend (or in ballet terms, plié) that he appears shorter than O’Connor. O’Connor’s torso also remains in a more rigid ballroom or ballet like posture, while Kelly will bend over from the waist.

Also in the athlete turned dancer category is Edward Villella. Villella is the founding artistic director and chief executive officer of Miami City Ballet. Prior to taking the reins of a company he gained fame as a principle dancer with the New York City Ballet.

Villella actually got his start in ballet after being knocked unconscious while playing baseball. His mother then decided that instead of playing baseball on the streets while his sister took ballet class, he was going to go to class with her. Despite his original protests, he soon fell in love with the art form, and auditioned and was accepted into the prestigious School of American Ballet.

Villella took a break from ballet to attend college, where he became a championship boxer and lettered in baseball. Despite his illustrious college career- both athletically and academically - he returned to ballet, joining New York City Ballet under George Balanchine.

On the switch from baseball to ballet, Villella pinpointed the physicality as a major hook, but also noted the artistry of ballet in conjunction with that physicality.

I was always in love with physicality but suddenly this was a mind driven physicality. Very, very different from the sandlot athletics that I was involved in. The structure the form, the line, the musicality. To be able to speak with your body, to be able to converse, to learn a language, a physical language, that crosses borders. Wow.

 

The physicality of dance is often ignored. Sure, tights might not be the most masculine article of clothing, but it takes a certain sort of musculature to be able to work those tights- and let me tell you, dancers sure can work them. After all, how many men do you know that are strong enough to lift a female above their head, throw her in the air, catch her, spin her around, and then delicately place her back on the ground on the tip of her toe?

Because the physicality of dance is presented in an extremely graceful manner, people are rarely cognizant of it. If a sports player is working hard, they’re allowed to show it. If a dancer is doing something difficult they’re required to hold their body and facial expressions in a manner that doesn’t give away any hint of the effort going into the movement. Dance is supposed to look easy.

Athletes, despite their brawn, are actually quite graceful. How many times are players who skillfully make their way past the defencemen said to be “dancing around” them? Dance terms are actually used to discuss hockey more often than many may notice. If I had an a dollar for every time an announcer misused the term “pirouette” to describe a spinning move a player did, well, I’d have a lot of dollars. I’d also probably be less annoyed by it.

Many elements of dance can be seen in sport, whether it’s the turned out position hockey players skate in, or even in the similar musculature of the athletes and dancers. Both, after all, require strong core and leg muscles to keep themselves balanced on very small pieces of real estate. A skate only offers so much space, and male dancers balance on the balls of their feet in soft, flat shoes.

Most of the time, when people learn that I’m an avid fan of both hockey and ballet, they’re shocked. They’re unable to see how I can enjoy the physicality of hockey while appreciating the grace and beauty of ballet. They fail to realize just how connected the two can be. St. Louis has his killer turn out. Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas does yoga. Neither of these traits or skills is usually considered particularly “athletic”. Gene Kelly and Edward Villella played a multitude of sports at high skill levels. Cornejo gave up soccer to pursue dance.

If more people are able to see the similarities between sport and dance, it could open up wider audiences for both. At the very least, it would provide people with an interesting cross contamination of two things they currently see as having nothing to do with one another.

Frank Sinatra nasceu em 12 de dezembro de 1915, descendente de italianos teve o seu nome várias vezes relacionado com a máfia,  também era ator e ganhou um Globo de Ouro e  um Oscar de ator coadjuvante pelo filme From Here To Eternity e fez filmes com Gene Kelly, Rita Hayworth e Elvis em seus bons dias.

Foi o primeiro Danny Ocean, de Ocean’s Eleven de 1960…  Posteriormente o papel passou para George Clooney e temos então Ocean’s Eleven de 2001.

Veja aqui o video de Frank Sinatra ganhando seu Oscar em 1954 ****

Possui duas estrelas na Calçada da Fama, uma por seu trabalho na música e outra por seu trabalho na TV americana. É considerado um dos maiores intérpretes da música no século XX. Teve três filhos: Nancy Sinatra, Frank Sinatra Jr. e Tina Sinatra.Foi casado com Nancy Barbato e posteriormente com as atrizes Ava Gardner e Mia Farrow, e com a socialite Barbara Marx, com quem terminou seus dias.

Mas eu quero falar do outro lado de Frank… O lado cantor. E não vou dizer, vou só mostrar.

Seus principais sucessos são “Fly me to the moon”, “My Way” e “New York, New York”. Sinatra também cantou com o brasileiro Tom Jobim. Na oportunidade, “Girl of Ipanema” brindou o grande encontro, porém na minha mais humilde opinião o melhor momento desse encontro foi esse… Change Partners

Lililililililili-lindo demais! Vou dançar isso no meu casamento…. aiai… MAS VOLTANDO..

Strangers In The Night - Killing Me Softly - I Won’t Dance - I’ve Got You Under My Skin

E ouçam também The Way You Look Tonight que eu infelizmente não achei um video decente.

So, how are you, Blue Eyes?

**** O filme The Godfather (1972) explora a história, mostrando que na verdade o ator teria sido “convencido” pela máfia a desistir do papel, para que Frank Sinatra pudesse interpretá-lo em seu lugar, pois na época o cantor estava em baixa.

Depois eu vou postar um top-top.

Cya, guys

Fellow xteamartist Zach Stalnaker contributed this video, courtesy of YouTube.  It shows off the many talents of a late legend.  It’s hard not to admit that…well…they just don’t make them like they used to.

University students can’t always buy crazy expensive clothing for obvious reasons.  We can, however, take iconic looks from classic movies and incorporate them into our own look and style.  I have compiled a short list of movies that I think show great style in them. If you haven’t seen them, now would be a great time to check them out; if you have, maybe you’d want to revisit them and look at them in a new way.  Feel free to comment with your own favourite fashion movies by clicking the “leave a comment” link above! 

1. Sixteen Candles

2. The Breakfast Club

3. Roman Holiday

4. My Fair Lady

5. Breakfast at Tiffany’s

6. Funny Face

7. Singing in the Rain

8. High Society

I still haven’t adjusted to daylight savings, so I’m too tired to get elbow-deep into theory tonight. That said, I always like sharing with ya’ll, so let’s look at some more music videos. We can watch TV and have a couple of brews too.

I’ve written on animation in music videos elsewhere. I keep thinking about animation’s relationship to the voice, the body, and the potentially gendered dynamics of all of this. One form of animation I haven’t read anything on and would love to explore further is live-action animation, which depicts “real” filmic bodies interacting with “unreal” animated ones. Think Gene Kelly dancing with Jerry from Tom and Jerry in Anchors Aweigh or key portions of Mary Poppins, otherwise known as the movie that got me through chicken pox.

Now let’s look at a couple of more contemporary examples of live-action animation.

She & Him
“Why Do You Let Me Stay Here?”
Volume One
Directed by Ace Norton

I think this clip does a good job of simulating the idyllic look of Disney’s early days, if only to exacerbate how creepy and scary those movies could be. Remember the “Pink Elephants on Parade” sequence in Dumbo? How about the “Night On Bald Mountain” segment in Fantasia, which I still cannot watch without covering my eyes. I can’t help but wonder if Alfred Hitchcock was inspired by Mickey Mouse’s shadow-projected broom-smashing sequence in ”The Sorcerer’s Apprentice“ when shooting Psycho’s shower scene. Scary shit, yo. So are the homicidal ghosts and animals in “Why Do You Let Me Stay Here?,” warping a sweet song about unrequited love into something disturbing.

Since I can’t post the video without mentioning the violence inflicted against Zooey Deschanel, I’ll admit that I cannot decide what to make of it. Is it misogynistic? If so, is it pointed or making a commentary, perhaps gesturing toward Disney’s regressive politics or undercutting the lead singer’s sweet image? Is it simply pointlessly violent and anti-female? Does the presence of multiple Deschanels and the singer’s own self-inflicted murderous actions complicate matters?

I find the second clip easier to process. No need to worry about adorable critters and ghouls disemboweling you. 

Kaki King
“Pull Me Out Alive”
Dreaming Of Revenge
Directed by Doug Karr and Edward Boyce
Lead Animator: Patrick Jasin

I really love this music video (and if you’re an avid reader here, you might guess that my friend Kristen pointed me in its direction). For one, Sara Quin of Tegan and Sara makes a sweet cameo. It’s also formally interesting – great use of stop motion and I love Jasin’s laser-based animation. Also, I think the animation wonderfully visualizes what King yearns for in the song — for something to pull her up, push her forward, or keep her together. I reason that the lasers symbolize the intangible, internal qualities of personal strength. Thus, the animation extends from the live-action figure, blurring the boundaries within and outside of the female body in the process.

I’m using this song to illustrate what I thought about the Jackson memorial documentary, This is It. It’s also the last song that Jackson sings at the end of the documentary before his dancers, singers, band and handlers. Instead of the crowds in London, we have become his audience. His final audience.

Remember, this was essentially 110 hours of rehearsals molded into two hours. The rehearsal footage was shot at the place where Jackson was memorialized: The Staples Center. Jackson never intended this footage to be used in any film; it would have been for his own use. Jackson’s purported physical weaknesses are sanitized out. Jackson is going through the movements of what he would do on stage in London. And like with most rehearsals, he’s trying not to attempt much. He’s feeling his way through his material: about what he could do and what he couldn’t do. And with arthritis in his spine and other maladies, he’s not the same as he was before. The dancers and the singers behind him who revere him and who cannot believe their good are exerting themselves as much as possible. They are dancing and singing for the King–and as extensions of himself. The dancers are all about a little over a quarter of a century younger than he. The singers are about that age and a little older. The band are musicians who have been with Jackson for quite a while, with a couple of newer faces. They can be themselves. But the singers and dancers very much try to reflect Michael as he was in his second fame: young, fresh, seemingly indestructible, and enthusiastic.

I’ve been to one rehearsal concert in my life, and that was for the late singer Frankie Laine in New Orleans. Yep, the same guy whose voice graced some 1950s Technicolor Westerns, like Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and Blazing Saddles, and TV Westerns like Rawhide. He needed an audience, and we black Catholic school kids were sent, during summer school, to be his audience. I don’t know how we seventh and eighth graders–13 and 14 year olds–managed to keep still. We were dressed up, and I vaguely remember that it was a large supper club, and we were fed for free. I’m sure we would have preferred seeing Otis Redding, or The Esquires, or The Fantastic Johnny C.

Laine ran through his then-current repertoire; corrected himself in mid-flight, sang songs twice, and we applauded every one he did, no matter what it was and whether we knew them at all. We were a largely uncritical audience. In some way, that’s what the movie audience is expected to do with Michael Jackson’s performance, to applaud him even though he is working a concert that was never given. It seems as if the best he has to offer us is what might have been, if… I could have written, if he hadn’t died. But that’s not quite true. Would he have finished those 50 shows with the same kind of professionalism, and the marshaling of his powers he shows here? Would the concerts have collapsed under the strain of his multiple physical and emotional problems? I don’t know. We don’t know.

If anything, I believe got what I was looking for, Michael’s process as a performer. No, it wasn’t the pyrotechnics, the special effects, the large spider prop. It was how he spoke to and negotiated with his band, Kenny Ortega, his dancers. How Ortega told him to be careful not to lean forward on the cherry picker. It wasn’t, for example, like following Gene Kelly around on the old NBC Omnibus show, Dancing Is a Man’s Game, which gave viewers and fans a clue to what drove Kelly and his brand of dancing, and why he wanted to show that dancing wasn’t an effete profession. It was, however, one depiction of how Michael put himself together.

And no, I don’t buy the crap that it was a body double out there doing the dancing. It was Michael Jackson. Believe that.

There were times, though, that I wondered about him. When he’s doing a tribute to his parents and his brothers…he’s not wanting to give it up. He says that he’s having problems with his earphones or something, but I don’t buy it. Either he’s not feeling it, or he doesn’t want to do it. It just made me think, umph, umph, umph, where are you really at, dude?…

I also hated the Joan Crawford-like jacket he wore in some of the scenes, the one with the high, but pointed shoulder pads. Perhaps it was made to make him look like a living guitar or something, but I hated it. It made me roll back to the police photos of Michael when he was arrested a second time for abusing a child, where he indeed appeared like Joan Crawford, that weird, abusive, and unhappy woman. No doubt, Michael was the kind of creative individual who transcended not only race but sexuality, but him in that jacket just made me enjoy the film less.

The This is It soundtrack is indeed a killer. From Wiki:

On September 23, 2009, information on and about the album were released. The album, titled This Is It was released internationally on October 26, and to North America the following day. The two-disc album features music ‘inspired from the documentary of the same name’. Sony said of the albums that: “Disc one will feature the original album masters of some of Michael’s biggest hits arranged in the same sequence as they appear in the film” and stated that the “the disc ends with two versions of the ‘never-released’ ‘This Is It’ [...] This song is featured in the film’s closing sequence and includes backing vocals by Michael [Jackson]’s brothers, the Jacksons.” Sony also stated that the second disc will feature “previously unreleased versions” from Jackson’s ‘catalogue of hits’ and that It will also include a spoken word poem entitled “Planet Earth” (which orginally appeared in the liner notes of the Dangerous album) and a 36-page commemorative booklet with “exclusive photos of Michael [Jackson] from his last rehearsal”. On October 9, Sony confirmed the songs that will appear on the album. A record label source said of This Is It – a song featured on the album: “It (the song) sounds awesome. The size and scope of the orchestra hasn’t been seen since Ray Charles recorded Georgia. Everyone expects a huge hit” and described the song as being “set to be a huge hit” but stated of the song’s secrecy that “they’re worried about it getting out [..] they’ve hired huge bodyguards to stand by the [music] studio['s] door.” Rolling Stone stated that This Is It was recorded during the sessions for Jackson’s 1991 album Dangerous.

I may get that, and two others one of these days.

Don’t get me wrong. See it to say goodbye to him. See it for your own reasons. I’m a fan, but then I am not. I’m wanting to look at him, and then study him, and take my own measure of him. You see, I saw him once before at the old Circle Star Theatre in San Carlos with his family. That’s when he still had his nose and his color and when he was still in stasis, putting it all together for that big break. That’s probably the memory I will keep most of all of this black king, The King of Pop. Not his end, but his beginning.

I think this may turn out to be my last shot of a cardinal climber blossom for 2009.  I didn’t realize it at the time, of course.  A lot of my favorite plants have shut down now, even though we haven’t had our official first frost yet.  How appropriate that the flower looks like it’s standing in a spotlight on a darkened stage, at the close of a scene.

Reminds me of that classic shot with the rose in American in Paris, a musical I practically memorized in high school when I thought it was the bees’ knees.  Does anybody else know the scene I’m talking about?  An unseen hand is holding a fat, velvety red rose at the end of Gene Kelly’s amazing, technicolor dream scene, and it trembles delicately in the spotlight, everything around it faded to black, as we contemplate the tragic end of a great love.

But, of course, everything turns out all right in the end.  Let’s not get too melodramatic about it.

This week in Introduction to Film was musical week — my favorite week. I adore musicals because they are designed to be loved. As Jane Feuer has argued, musicals, particularly the backstage musicals released by MGM’s Freed Unit, function to affirm the necessity of the musical genre in the lives of its audience (458). Forever striving to recreate the sense of liveness lost when the musical left the Broadway stage and became a mass-produced product, classical Hollywood musicals wish to break down the barriers between the performer on screen and the audience sitting in the theater. These films want to merge the dream world of song and dance with the mundane real world where we trip over our feet. Musicals achieve this goal by making song and dance appear natural, effortless and integrated into every day life.

My Intro to Film students are generally put off by musicals, finding their song and dance numbers to be “awkward” or “cheesy” (their words, not mine). And so I usually devote lecture time to explaining how many musicals attempt to integrate song and dance naturally into the diegesis — to ease this transition for the viewer. We look, for example, at one of my all time favorite musical numbers, “Someone At Last” from A Star is Born (1954).

Aside from the crude ethnic stereotyping, I find this number to be completely enchanting every time I watch it. I point out Garland’s skillful use of bricolage, that is the way she “happens” to find certain props around her living room — a smoking cigarette, a tiger skin rug, a table resembling a harp — at just the moment that she needs them. The “mundane world” of the living room becomes, through the joy of performance, a Hollywood set (which, in reality, it is). Bricolage creates a feeling of spontaneity, which is central to the appeal of the musical. As Feuer argues “The musical, technically the most complex type of film produced in Hollywood, paradoxically has always been the genre that attempts to give the greatest illusion of spontaneity and effortlessness” (463). The  more natural a performance appears, the more we enjoy it. As we watch this routine we momentarily forget that Vicki Lester/Judy Garland is the most famous female musical star and (both within and outside A Star is Born) and is instead a devoted wife who loves to sing and dance for her husband (James Mason) and for us.

Judy readies for her close up.

When I show this scene I usually have to put on quite a show myself, explaining to my students exactly why this performance is so satisfying, so joyous. But this week when I showed this clip I heard my students giggling (appropriately) at Judy’s jokes and expressing amusement at her clever use of props. They were enjoying it. The same thing happened when I showed them another one of my favorites, the iconic title number from Singin’ in the Rain (1952). In this scene, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) has just shared a kiss with Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds), and is consequently filled with joie de vivre. It is pouring rain outside but he dismisses the car that waits to drive him home. Don wants to walk and luxuriate in this moment of romantic bliss. Then, he just can’t help himself. His steps down the sidewalk turn almost involuntarily into dance and his dreamy, romantic thoughts become song. Here dancing and singing truly emerge out of a “joyous and responsive attitude toward life” (459).

As this scene played on the big screen I turned to look at my 100 students and was delighted to see the enchanted looks on their faces. They were enthralled, as I am every time I watch this number. They were enjoying themselves. At last!

But why? Why now? The answer is Glee. When I began my lecture on the musical earlier this week I told my students that by the end of the week I was hoping to have some musical converts in the class. ”If you are watching the show Glee right now” I said, “the convention of breaking into song and dance shouldn’t be that foreign to you.” A large portion of the class nodded their heads in reponse to this. As it turned out, more than half of the students in my class are watching the show. And I think this has made all the difference.

Feeling the glee.

Though I have not always been happy with the politics of Glee, I have always been satisfied with their adoption of the conventions of the backstage musical. Characters sing when they are in love (“I Could Have Danced All Night”) or lust (“Sweet Caroline”) and they sing when their hearts are breaking (“Bust The Windows”). And the most successful (i.e., the most passionate) group performances in the series arise, as they do in the classical Hollywood musical, when the show’s characters are working together and cooperating (“Don’t Stop Believin’,”Keep Holding On”). Resolution in the narrative equals resolution on the stage. The classical Hollywood musical incarnate.

So while Glee may not be breaking any new ground in its use and depiction of homosexual characters or ethnic minorities, it has, to my delight, given my students license to love the musical and to revel in its joy. And that’s something to be gleeful about.

Works Cited

Feuer, Jane. “The Self Reflexive Musical and the Myth of Entertainment.” Film Genre Reader III. Ed. Barry Keith Grant. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2003. 457-471.

USA 103m, Colour & B&W
Directors: Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly; Cast: Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds, Jean Hagen

Singin’ in the Rain is a delightful movie to watch in any era. Not only does it contain some of Hollywood’s most memorable song and dance numbers, but it also boasts a great comedic performances, witty dialogue and a sophisticated screenplay which moves the cast effortlessly between the reality of the main story and song and dance routines within theatrical numbers that are both real and imagined. While the song and dance performances of Kelly, O’Connor and Reynolds generally garner most of the attention, Jean Hagen’s performance as the tonally-challenged silent screen star who is stymied by the advent of the talkies is priceless (Klaus Ming October 2009).

MAGIA, ESPADA Y FANTASÍA (IV)

Las cosas como son: la película ha envejecido lo suyo desde aquel lejano 1987 de su estreno. Pero quienes la vieron en su momento y se encontraban en la frontera entre la infancia y la adolescencia, o incluso en ésta, la recuerdan como parte de aquel periodo, como quizá el último cuento de hadas que se tragaron sin sentirse ridículos o estúpidos. Lamentablemente, hay que echar mano de memoria y de nostalgia para que esas sensaciones negativas no se recuperen súbitamente ante un visionado del mismo film a edad ya madura. Pero dejando la puerta abierta a los recuerdos es posible que el espectador pueda reencontrarse con aquél que fue un día y que era capaz no sólo de ver cosas como ésta, sino de disfrutarlas.

Rob Reiner, director discreto (es autor de eso llamado El presidente y Miss Wade) con algunos notables puntos a su favor (Cuenta conmigo, Cuando Harry encontró a Sally, Algunos hombres buenos y, sobre todo, Misery), se encumbró a finales de los ochenta gracias a esta amable fábula de aventuras de capa y espada en un mundo mágico conectado con la realidad a través de la lectura que un abuelo (Peter Falk) hace a su nieto enfermo (Fred Savage, aquel niño imbécil de la serie Aquellos maravillosos años), de una historia contenida en uno de sus libros favoritos, con el fin de ayudarle a sobrellevar la convalecencia y apartarlo de los incipientes videojuegos. Esa historia entre leída e inventada (según el anciano percibe de reojo el interés creciente o decreciente del chaval en lo que le cuenta) que el abuelo va relatando al muchacho nos traslada el legendario reino de Florin, en el que gobierna el malvado tirano príncipe Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon) con ayuda del malévolo Vizzini (Wallace Shawn). Humperdinck, maloso que es, rapta a la bellísima Buttercup (tacita de mantequilla, interpretada por Robin Wright Penn mucho antes de ser Penn) para convertirla en su prometida, lo cual no gusta nada a la muchacha ni al campesino humilde del que estaba enamorada (Cary Elwes). Éste, con ayuda de un aventurero español, Íñigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin) y de un gigante de manazas enormes (quien escribe siempre ha pensado las vueltas que podría dar la cabeza de cualquier mortal tras recibir un bofetón de semejante explanada llena de dedos) luchan contra los malos para rescatar a la joven y para que Íñigo logre vengar la muerte de su padre (“Hola. Mi nombre es Íñigo Montoya. Tu mataste a mi padre. Prepárate a morir.”).

Película de carácter indudablemente juvenil, destaca sobre la mayoría de los productos de su género por varias notas características que la diferencian favorablemente. En primer lugar, su estética colorista, dinámica, de hermosos paisajes, de escenografías de cartón piedra, de dirección artística al servicio de la fantasía con efectos especiales que van desde lo estimable (para 1987) a lo deliberadamente cutre, que hace que la cinta sea la traducción más acertada, incluso hasta la fecha, de los clásicos de dibujos animados de Disney al cine de carne y hueso. En segundo lugar, la música compuesta por Mark Knopfler, hoy en día un tanto anticuada por su producción demasiado ochentera, pero uno de los trabajos más recordados de su autor en solitario. En tercer lugar, la ironía: es una película que, como los buenos cuentos infantiles, consigue contar historias violentas y truculentas, sórdidos episodios de brujas y gigantes, de ogros y pérfidos y crueles príncipes, con un tono ligero, casual, en el que, en este caso, abunda el humor, tanto en la estrafalaria caracterización de algunos personajes, incluido el héroe, más bien atípico, como en la brillantez de ciertos diálogos, que pueden ofrecer a un tiempo frases lapidarias y gracietas de cierto mérito. A este respecto, conviene recordar que el guión es obra de William Goldman (autor igualmente de guiones como Harper, Dos hombres y un destino, El carnaval de las águilas, Todos los hombres del presidente, la propia Misery, Chaplin, Poder absoluto, El indomable Will Hunting o Corazones en Atlántida), y que adaptó su propia novela.

Pero sobre todo si destaca por algo esta película por encima de otras fábulas juveniles es por el amor al cine de aventuras que destila, a los tiempos de Douglas Fairbanks, Errol Flynn o Gene Kelly, a clásicos como Robín de los bosques, El zorro, El capitán Blood, El corsario negro o El pirata. Tanto la construcciòn de la historia, en particular de algunas secuencias, como las coreografías de los duelos a espada remiten directamente a aquel tiempo dorado del cine de aventuras, desconocido por supuesto para quienes en los ochenta eran (éramos) unos críos de la edad de Fred Savage. A ese gusto por el cine clásico de aventuras que rememora hay que añadir la defensa que supone del libro como concepto, como puerta abierta a la fantasía, como vehículo de ocio que tantos y tan buenos ratos puede ofrecer. Esta película, junto con otras del mismo estilo (sobre todo La historia interminable, sobre el libro de Michael Ende), ha hecho mucho por el acercamiento de buena parte de los jóvenes de los ochenta al mundo de los libros en un tiempo en que las maquinitas de botoncitos made in Japan avecinaban lo que iba a venir en décadas posteriores.

Nostalgia a raudales, humor, duelos a espada, acrobacias, sorpresas, peligros, criaturas extraordinarias, buena música, alguna que otra interpretación curiosa y/o aceptable (Billy Crystal, sobre todo, pero también Christopher Guest, Peter Cook o Carol Kane), fantasía, emoción, gente feliz que come perdices y malos que pagan sus fechorías: una vuelta a la infancia, a la ingenuidad, a la magia de los cuentos leídos a la luz de la mesita de noche por una voz cálida que nunca olvidaremos.

Hello! I’d say this is the Divine Miss M, but Bette Midler already took that moniker. That bitch.

I guess you can call me the Magnificent M. Or M, or Miss N, or Miss M. Or “You”. Or TheDeadSwan (alternatively, I’m alright with The Dead Swan). I don’t really care what you call me. “that which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet;” and whatnot.

So a little bit about me, since you asked! My three main interests in life are dance, hockey, and baking. Not necessarily in that order though. Depending on how strong my craving for a cake is, hockey and baking sometimes switch around. Dance is almost always first on my list.

The other day I was discussing a hockey game with my sister on the streets of NYC when a man turned around and asked incredulously “Are you two discussing hockey?” Yes, we were, we responded. “Wow. I don’t normally hear girls talking about hockey”. I’m not normal, and in this case, that’s damn awesome. We proceeded to have two blocks of nice conversation with this random man about how Derek Morris sucks. All because I was discussing the fact that a certain line was negative nine after one game.

I can also guarantee you that I’ll beat your ass in trivia about Gene Kelly or Singing in the Rain, and I can name all the principal dancers of American Ballet Theater and all the choreographers who were featured in their fall season at Avery Fisher Hall. Some people call me crazy; I prefer the term eccentric.

I have no problem reconciling these three hobbies of mine- just ask me about my Patty Kakes*. For the record, if you’re ever in a bind, making “Puck Cookies” is the easiest thing ever: Make a circular cookie. Call it a puck. Eat.

As for mixing hockey and ballet? My lucky number is 4- my mother had a signed Bobby Orr jersey hanging up in the dance room in our house. I wear a 4 medallion on a chain right next to a ballet themed charm. It’s not as uncommon as you’d think- just a few weeks ago I wound up in a ballet class right next to a girl in a Penguins t-shirt. Two weeks later, we were at the same barre again, only this time I was in a Blackhawks shirt.

Personally, I’m of the opinion that people with a hobby or profession as seemingly delicate as ballet probably have interests in something with a little bloodlust to balance everything out. Michele Wiles** probably goes home at night and watches WWE Raw. Of course, that’s all speculation and claims I can’t make good on.

Now you know about my lady business. In my posts, I’ll probably discuss ballet, dance in general, hockey, or baking. No promises, of course. I could very well end up writing all about Bugs Bunny for an entire post, or perhaps the trials and tribulations of being me. I’m sure you’re excited for that. There’s just nothing quite like the self-righteous ranting of Internet bloggers, is there? (For that reason, I’ll try to keep the whining to a minimum) Regardless, I hope you’ll be willing to stick around as I try to figure out balancing blogging with the rest of my life. So welcome to Lady Business! I hope I’ll be seeing you around!

* Patty Kakes consist of a cupcake with the top leveled off. The cupcake is then flipped upside down and stuffed with frosting or custard, with a happy little blob of frosting on top (the old bottom). They’re named for geriatric abusing Chicago Blackhawks forward/phenom Patrick Kane, because his name sort of sounds like/is sort of spelled like Patty Kake, and because he looks like he’s young enough to still be playing Patty Cake. They are my favorite hockey titled food, second only to Evgeni Mac ’n Cheese.
** Michele Wiles is a principal dancer with American Ballet Theater. I met her briefly once, and my mother met her briefly, once, and she was very nice. Other than that, I have no knowledge of her television habits. Ms. Wiles, should you find this, please don’t be offended. I think you’re great.

Jabbawockeez on Dancing with the Stars. They are one of the best dance crew in the world. Their coordination together is just the best I’ve ever seen. Proves that quantity is not at its best without Quality. A year ago they won the award for America’s Best Dance Crew and recently they appeared in ANTM cycle 13. JBWKZ ROCK ON!