regisseur: Alfred Hitchcock

producer: Alfdred Hitchcock

schrijver:s Robert Block (boek); Joseph Stefano (screenplay); Samuel A. Taylor (screenplay)

cast: Anthony Perkins; John Gavin; Janet Leigh; Vera Miles

Miss Froy is missing.

Or did she ever exist?

Is Iris crazy?

Lots of games on TV tonight and I’m doing my best to watch most of them.

-Detroit loses at home to Atlanta, 2-0.  Boy, did Atlanta look good.  Detroit put 40 shots on goal and Ondrej Pavelec stopped them all.  Ron Hainsey plays 20 minutes, is +1, and made some fine defensive plays throughout the game.

-Montreal travels to Pittsburgh and loses, 3-1.  They did not look like the team that ran past Columbus last night.  They were tired and never got going.

-I’ve been watching the Nashville at Colorado game until now.  The Predators jumped to a quick 2-0 lead in the first, Colorado went up 3-2 in the second, but Shea Weber ties it with a minute to go in the second.  Adam Foote is still out.

-The game of the night is Chicago at San Jose, which just started.  Marian Hossa makes his debut tonight. Both teams are hot, 8-1-1 in their last ten games.

-I heard that Ken Hitchcock had the Jackets working on chipping the puck today for the entire practice.  Hitch’s idea of a perfect game would have the Jackets chipping the puck about 150 feet down the ice, just enough to avoid an icing call.  My idea of a perfect game would have the Jackets scoring more goals than their opponent.

Every so often I’ve updated the list of films that I have already seen with brief reviews.  Call it the complete-ist in me, but when I’m done with reviewing each of the films in the book, I’d like to have reviewed every single film in the book.

Anyhow, here’s another batch for you to read.

Enjoy!

Shichinin No Samurai AKA Seven Samurai (1954)

The Seven Samurai is the first movie that I had the pleasure of seeing from the master director Akira Kurosawa, and it is also one of his most praised works. Without a wasted frame, the story takes place over the course of almost 3 hours. Kurosawa, as he does in each of his movies, explores more than just the action and injustice featured in the plot. He is a humanist first and foremost, training his lens on the interpersonal relationships of the characters, tracking growth across this epic. As good as this film is, I would have to say that Kurosawa has numerous films that are even better, check out Stray Dog, Rashomon, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and my personal favorite High and Low.

The Ladykillers (1955)

Existing as a special combination of dark humor, and slapstick farce, The Ladykillers is exceptionally funny and unsettling. Alec Guinness stars as the leader of a group of criminals staying at the home of a hardy, vivacious older lady under the guise of being musicians. The plan is simple, rob a bank, and utilizing the trusting nature of the kindly old lady, and the remoteness of her home to their advantage, get away with it. Easily my favorite of Alec Guinness’ films (thanks in part to the Star Wars prequels that is), The Ladykillers features a solid cast of great actors, including a very young Peter Sellers.

Bob Le Flambeur AKA Bob the Gambler (1955)

My introduction to the fantastic Jean-Pierre Melville, I was captivated immediately by the cool as ice gangster come gambler Bob. This film is filled with signature Melville-isms. Glorious post war street scenes in Paris. Trench-coats. Honor among thieves. And who could forget the caper. To talk too much about this film is to give too much away, and to do that is to ruin it for those who haven’t seen it. Other classics by Melville: Le Cercle Rouge, Le Samourai, and the recently released in the U.S. Army of Shadows. All are fantastic, and deserve to be in this book! Incidentally, Bob le Flambeur was recently re-made into The Good Thief starring Nick Nolte and directed by Neil Jordan, and while I’m not generally a fan of re-makes, I really, really liked this film. Not quite as good as the original, but it was one of my favorite films of 2002.

Kiss Me Deadly (1955)

The ultimate in hardboiled private eye crime stories, Kiss Me Deadly is a full on assault on decency. Kiss Me Deadly proudly presents itself as a grimy PI story, littered with bodies and intrigue. If you even have a passing interest in film noir, this should be your first stop. Violent, misogynist, brutish, and glorious, Kiss Me Deadly begs to be watched and dares you to look away. I myself, loved it!

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Apparently based on a book, The Ten Commandments is an epic in every sense of the word. Colored in bright explosive candy hues, and featuring huge sets, as well as a cast that number in the thousands, The Ten Commandments is more spectacle than great movie. Certainly not a waste of time, but not my first choice when choosing something light to throw in.

Det Sjunde Inseglet AKA The Seventh Seal (1957)

A classic, and well-loved film by Swedish auteur Ingmar Bergman, The Seventh Seal stars an extremely young Max von Sydow as a knight who faces Death at a game of chess to decide his fate. This film is filled with themes that find their way into each of Bergman’s works, ranging from courage in the face of death, religion, and humanity. The Seventh Seal still holds up to this day, with luminous black and white photography that, thanks to Criterion’s Blu-ray edition, has never looked better.

Note: Don’t be fooled by the similarly themed, but much worse, “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey”

Kumonosu Jo AKA Throne of Blood (1957)

Kurosawa’s retelling of Macbeth set in feudal Japan. Shakespeare has never looked better as it does in the stark black and white, twisting shadows and swirling mists as seen through Kurosawa’s camera. Toshiro Mifune doesn’t disappoint in the lead role, but the real stand out is Isuzu Yamada in the as Mifune’s opportunistic, poisonous wife. The plotting and scheming starts right from the get go, all the way up till the frenzied end of the film.

Touch of Evil (1958)

One of the many trouble spots on Orson Welles’ resume due to studio interference, and financing issues, still Touch of Evil remains as possibly the best B-Movie ever made. Iconic (and sometimes hilarious) performances by Janet Leigh, Charlton Heston (as a Mexican) and Welles himself as the crooked cop willing to do almost anything to ensure justice prevails (just so long as it’s his justice). The movie is almost as famous for its long tracking shot opening as it is for any of the performances, featuring a nearly 4 minute shot done in one take which travels around cars, actors, and buildings. The film The Player, payed homage to it by mentioning it a few times during a similarly complex shot in that film.

Vertigo (1958)

Flopping on its initial release, Vertigo didn’t gain the acclaim it deserved until much later after it was released on video. Vertigo visits themes present in each of Hitchcock’s other works, including the obsession with blondes, innocence tainted with corruption, and the schlub who get in over his head. Jimmy Stewart plays the schlub, Kim Novak plays the blonde, and gloriously technicolored San Francisco plays the innocence and the corruption. Vertigo has a twisty convoluted story with elements of surrealism, an interesting watch.

Mon Oncle AKA My Uncle (1958)

My favorite of Jacques Tati’s Monsieur Hulot films, Mon Oncle was also the first of them that I had seen. Tati, playing Hulot, is a master of visual comedy, and not in the same way as the Three Stooges, or even Buster Keaton. Tati is an artist whose work is appreciated the longer you watch. The plot of the movie is not so much important to the film as it is simply a guide to get our characters into interesting situations so we can watch them get out. If you liked this film, check out other films featuring the bumbling Mr. Hulot, including Trafic, Playtime, and Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot.

Les Quatre Cents Coups AKA The 400 Blows (1959)

My personal favorite of the French new wave movement was this small-scale film, personal piece from Francois Truffaut. Featuring the director’s alter ego, Antoine Doinel, The 400 Blows is the first in a series of movies, each about a different stage of life and the challenges that go along with them. The period from childhood to young adult is covered heart-breakingly here, following Antoine through the rough waters of his home life and his interaction with the outside world. Later chapters deal with finding love, getting married, having children, and growing old, but Les Quatres Cent Coups remains the directors most personal and his best.

North by Northwest (1959)

One of Hitchcock’s best, North by Northwest features Cary Grant, suave as ever, being mistaken for a government agent by a group of foreign spies. Just like in Hitchcock’s most famous works (of which this is one), the witty one-liners, suspense, and drama are heaped on generously. I can’t help but feel sad that a similarly themed, but better film featuring Cary Grant was left off this 1001 list. Charade, also featuring Audrey Hepburn, James Coburn, and Walter Matthau, is one of my favorite movies ever! Check out both Charade AND North by Northwest as a double feature! You won’t be sorry.

Some Like it Hot (1959)

Now this is an example of a classic, well-loved film, with actors that I really love (Jack Lemmon I’m looking at you), a premise that is more than suitable, yet the finished product never really caught me. It’s sort of like Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief. I never really saw what all the hype was about. That being said, I didn’t hate it either. It never made fun of me when I had braces, or turned me down for a date, my affections and this film have just always been mutually exclusive. Perhaps it deserves another watch…then again maybe I should just watch The Last Boyscout again.

A Bout De Souffle AKA Breathless (1959)

Jean-Luc Godard is nothing if not a sacred cow of French cinema, and while I have loved some of his other films (Le Mepris, Bande A Part, and Masculin Femenine), Breathless or A Bout De Souffle never really did it for me. I can still rationalize why it was so revolutionary (use of jump cuts, editing, non-actors, and subscription to the aesthetic of the French new wave style), and see it’s importance, but I prefer other examples of New Wave cinema. If you are interested in seeing a Godard film, try Masculin Feminine, it is just as revolutionary and a bit more accessible.

Psycho (1960)

A prime example of Hitchcock in his prime. Psycho was so good, and so affecting that some of its actors were type cast just on the strength of this one film (Anthony Perkins, and Janet Leigh), so much so that without a little research it’s hard to think of what other films either of them has been in. Psycho may not be as visually shocking and gory as horror films of today, but it still manages to hold up over time and be just as unsettling as it was back in its day. Hitchcock has always excelled at making the comfortable un-comfortable (motels, birds, tea, dreams, the list goes on…), and the subtle touches in this film work perfectly. Consider for a moment that Perkin’s Bates is an amateur taxidermist of birds, and then that Janet Leigh’s name is Marion Crane a type of bird, or the fact before the crime Marion is wearing a white bra and a white purse, while after it she is wearing a black bra and purse. His attention to detail, and knack for foreshadowing is demonstrated in full force in Psycho and remains one of his best films. Despite all the uproar over the Gus Van Sant remake, I thought it actually did some justice to the original film and if nothing else brought it a little more deserved attention.

Note: This film also has the distinction of being the first American film to ever show a toilet flushing on-screen.

Peeping Tom (1960)

Released the same year as Psycho, and dealing with similar subject matter, Peeping Tom wasn’t received with the same acclaim and attention that the former was. On the contrary, Peeping Tom was seen as subversive, perverted, and generally too shocking. The story revolves more around the killer than the victim in this one, whereas Psycho is presented more from the victim’s point of view. Either way, Peeping Tom is a fine film, one worth watching, however it is so similar to Psycho that I’m not sure it needs to be on the list of 1001 films.

The Apartment (1960)

As far as light-hearted, touching movies about someone recovering from a bout of depression, this one is my favorite. Billy Wilder directs Shirley MacLaine and Jack Lemmon in a sweet touching comedy without losing any of his trademark cynicism or the pointedness of his dialogue. The Apartment is another chance for me to champion the somewhat maligned talents of Mr. Fred MacMurray as Lemmon’s boss. MacMurray plays a fantastic creep who really defines the term “heel”.

Spartacus (1960)

Containing almost none of the trademark elements that make up a Stanley Kubrick movie as we know it (Kubrick apparently dis-owned the film before it’s release), Spartacus remains an interesting movie that isn’t great. It is, however, another example of a film that enabled an up and coming filmmaker to gain his voice, and define himself later on in his career. If only for that reason, Spartacus is a great film, but luckily for the studio, it has some other things going for it. Kirk Douglas plays the title role of Spartacus, and despite all the lavish set production, and concentration on spectacle, brings some heart to the slave who defied Rome.

Jules Et Jim AKA Jules and Jim (1962)

One of director, Francois Truffaut’s most well thought of films, Jules and Jim may be the Lost In Translation, or Juno of its time. Viewed from a certain angle, the plot is a completely moving and emotional story that you believe, so much so, that you can see yourself and those around you in the roles that these characters embody. Viewed from another perspective, it can seem a little precious or purposefully manipulative. Depending on what is happening in your life (I’m mostly thinking about whether or not you are in a relationship, and if you are happy), this movie can preach the glory of love and the pain of rejection. On the flipside, if you have shaken free the angsty, teenager-esque feelings everyone has had in their youth, you may feel like you’re being talked down to.

Cleo De 5 A 7 AKA Cleo from 5 to 7

Taking place, as the title suggests, from 5 to 7, we get a slice of the life of Cleo played out before us. Sometimes we, along with Cleo herself, are a voyeurs into the lives of people around her, and other times we are focused on her as she roams around Paris. By and large Cleo lives a carefree, spoiled life, yet we still sympathize with her when times are hard, and cheer for her when they are good. This is a small film in a lot of ways, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t impacting and beautiful.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

I have to admit.  I didn’t like Lawrence of Arabia that much.  Perhaps I was too young to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of Lean’s desert panorama camerawork, or just maybe it was the epic length that decided it for me.  One way or another, I didn’t appreciate it as much as everyone else seems to think I should. 

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Overly reliant on gimmicks and quick editing techniques, The Manchurian Candidate doesn’t flesh out the story nearly…wait, no that was the terrible re-make that came out in 2004.  The original 1962 version, is just as taught, and well executed today as it was at its release.  While the story between the two versions remained virtually the same, the consistent building of tension and anxiety, combined with the pitch perfect acting of Lawrence Harvey, Frank Sinatra (yes…Frank Sinatra), and the devilish turn of Angela Lansbury as the Queen of Hearts, makes for a fantastic film.

Lolita (1962)

It took me forever to finally see Lolita.  I have known the basic story (older man, younger girl) but had just never gotten around to seeing it.  And while I’ve been told that the book is much better, I thought the film was pretty good.  Not great, mind you, but definitely solid.  The shocking and controversial nature of the relationship was toned down a bit for the screen, and maybe as a result doesn’t seem all that shocking in today’s day and age.  Memorable turns by Peter Sellers, and Shelley Winters, not to mention it’s an early film of Stanley Kubrick.

The Birds (1963)

Despite being one of Hitchcock’s most popular, I actually think that The Birds is one of his most over-rated.  I think I owe it to myself to give this one another look someday, but right now I feel that it was too heavily based on the gimmick that had to rely on special effects.  Though it is not necessarily the fault of the movie, but the special effects seemed particularly dated and old fashioned.  Worth a watch, but not my favorite by a long shot.

8 1/2 (1963)

Federico Fellini is, by most accounts, a master of cinema.  One, that I have always had a little trouble getting fired up over.  It’s not that I don’t like his films once I’ve seen them, the problem comes in when it comes to motivating myself to see them.  I couldn’t tell you why, but his films consistently get pushed off when they come up on my Netflix Queue or when I see the one or two I have on my shelf.  I shouldn’t feel this way, considering I really loved the moving poetry, and soul baring passion in 8 1/2, yet it still happens.  One very definite reason to watch this film is the man-crushable Marcello Mastroianni, swaggering through as the alter-ego of Fellini himself.  Dealing with all the reservations with women, making movies, childhood, and the future that the director very famously dealt with himself, Mastroianni embodies a certain cool, yet believable character that begs to be watched.  Combined with imagery that leaves the audience wanting more, 8 1/2 is a fantastic film.

Well, that’s it for this time.  Thanks for reading!

…but Nashville passed Columbus in the standings.  And the Jackets are also sinking into the murky waters of eighth place in the Conference standings.  You can either say thank goodness for the great start or it would be a lot worse.  Or you can say the good start was merely a mask over some troubling issues.  It’s up to you, fans.

I’m concerned about the defense because it is the same group as last season.  Not a stronger group, but definitely not weaker.  Do we really miss Aaron Rome and Christian Backman that much?  I don’t know about you, but I miss last season’s Mike Commodore and Jan Hedja. I sure wish they would re-join the team.

As for the offense, the lost Jason Williams, Michael Peca, and Manny Malhotra.  To fill in for them, the team now has Mike Blunden and Nikita Filatov.  Well, at least Rick Nash is putting up enough numbers to make up for the loss of Williams.  I guess you could say that this area needs more work.

And then there is Steve Mason.  Goalies are different and back when I played my goalies would always confirm that statement by shutting out the best teams and then not be able to stop a beach ball the next night.  Columbus has a history of being fooled by goaltenders, from Marc Denis to Pascal Leclaire to Freddy Norrena.  They all got off to solid starts in the net for the Jackets and then forgot how to play the position within a short period of time.  I’m no goalie expert (but I have seen them on TV) so I don’t have any ideas here.  Rest him up?  Send him down for a few games?  Ride the storm out?  Trade him?  You tell me.  But if his GAA doesn’t start moving down to the number three neighborhood and his SV% stays below .900, then the season for him is lost.

Dearest Olivia took me to Tesco’s to get the food shopping in last night and, upon setting eyes on the four-page list of ingredients I was supposed to buy, helped me reach the executive decision to give cookery a miss this week.

It’s the end of the pay period, I’m not exactly rolling in it and I’d rather buy electricity and phone credit than vine fruits and pudding basins. I apologise to my mum and dad for this because it means I probably won’t be turning up to either of their houses over Christmas bearing seasonal homebakery as I’d hoped.

Today my friend and now colleague Flavie accompanied me on a mini-reconnaissance through Primrose Hill to find a good taxi-hailing street where I could loiter, lumpen in my orthopedic footwear, and pretend to be glamorous despite it being pitifully clear that will be impossible for the next six weeks.

The outfit went down the pan because I couldn’t even bring myself to try on my pencil skirt with flats, let alone wear it to a new job, and then the accessorising fell by the wayside too.

Skirt suit

Law suit

We had to run away quickly because people started throwing coins at me. One of them implored me to please not spend the money on a good meal.

Conclusions:

• In the absence of recipe cookery I was able to buy a trolley-full of exciting fruit, veg, yoghurt and other healthy items I hardly ever get to eat. It’s the equivalent of how a normal person feels buying a load of cakes and pizzas.
• A few things ruining my chances of looking like a Hitchcock heroine this week: flat shoes, special boot, crutches, neon socks on crutches, too-low waistlines on clothes (cinching and flats have a difficult marriage), eighties tailoring, heavy fringe, lighting.

In the UK, a report says that policing playgrounds would cut all crime.

Climate change is already having an impact in the Caribbean.

In Afghanistan, America is arming anti-Taliban militias.

In China, the middle class is getting into environmental protest.

Psycho taught America to love murder.

click the image to see full-size

—

—

DIALOGUE
Between Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, from Alfred Hitchcock’s “Charade” (1963)

IMAGES
Christopher Lee and Caroline Munro in “Dracula A.D. 1972” (1972)
From Google and Brian’s Drive-In Theater

Until Death 1987

Director: Lamberto Bava

Writers: Lamberto Bava and Dardano Sacchetti

Starring Gioia Scola, David Brandon, Giuseppe De Sando, Roberto Pedicini, Marco Vivio and Urbano Barberini

    Lamberto Bava is one of my favorite of the Italian horror directors, not on the level of his father Mario, but very good nonetheless.  My personal favorite of his is Demons.  So, when I caught a look at this one over at Netflix, I grabbed it up pretty quickly.  It was nothing amazing but still an entertaining film nonetheless.  It was a combination of a Hitchcockian suspense film with a supernatural twist at the end.  It kept that twist under wraps till the very end, for the most part you think the film is following the general rules of a suspense film until the final act comes along and reverses everything.  IT has a steady and brisk pace that carries the viewer along for the ride and also makes you care for what will happen to most of the characters.  Bava sets up the dilemma well in the beginning and ratchets up the tension with each scene till the tension becomes so heavy that you know something is going to break under the weight of all this anticipation.  Bava balances all these ingredients well and it forms into a nice potboiler of a film.

    The plot basics are this, Linda (Scola) has killed her husband with the aid of her lover, Carlo (Brandon) buries the body and hides this nefarious deed from all.  Linda is pregnant with her son and much time passes, six years in fact and everything seems to be going well until a drifter (Barberini) appears at their doorstep.  This drifter becomes helpful but soon Linda begins to fear that he knows something and is trying to bring back the old nightmares of disposing of her husband.  This causes a rift between her and Carlo and things begin to turn violent between them.  It soon seems that the drifter is not who he appears and the justice that has long eluded Linda and Carlo is coming for its comeuppance and not even death will stop it.  Will Linda come to terms with her foul deed or will she perish herself?

    This is a finely crafted film.  Bava’s direction is taut and suspenseful.  The more time that progresses in the film and the higher the levels of tension get till it permeates every scene.  I like how Bava tries to start a love triangle within the film but then pulls the rug out from under you and goes in a different direction.  The script is good too, the only complaint I would make is the film would have benefited more from just being a straight suspense film and really did not need the supernatural twist at the end.  The main story was good enough it did not need that.  The cast is good too, Scola reminds me a lot of Sophia Loren and she has a musky sexuality that permeates all her scenes.  She also has a good acting range that she is able to show all the emotions needed when she finally breaks down at the end.  Brandon is also great as the scummy and amoral lover who doesn’t care about anything but his own base needs.  Barberini is the drifter is very good too, he makes you sympathetic for him from the get go, but deep within you know he is plotting something.  The SFX and effects are good, there is not much but what there is shown and used very well.  The fire at the end of the film is probably the best effect in the film.  This is a solid suspense film that would be a great film if not for the unnecessary supernatural angle at the end.

This one gets 3 out of 5 

Si hay en nuestra época (últimos sesenta años, fin de la segunda guerra) un novelista infravalorado ese es sin duda Ian Fleming. Resulta extraño, en medio de un horizonte dominado por las más variopintas revisitaciones, que todavía sea poca la gente (entre ellos Umberto Eco) que se haya dedicado a estudiar su obra en serio. Quizá en su día no repercutió en el prestigio del creador de James Bond el hecho de que sus novelas se vendieran en formato de papel barato (“pulp”) equiparándolas así a otras de calidad más cuestionable. Quizá la adaptación cinematográfica, gamberra y superficial para que pudiera producir lo que se entiende por “clásicos”, repercutió en que la palabra “James Bond” no se asociara en mucho tiempo a nada serio; es decir, a cualquier forma de arte que, trascendiendo el cliché y el estereotipo, descubra la personalidad de un autor.

Encadenados de Hitchcock: en el espionaje no hay sitio para el amor.

Un revelador caso de todo ello se concreta en el papel que juega el elemento sexual. El carácter lúdico del encuentro sexual, ya en las primeras adaptaciones de las novelas, es potenciado hasta el extremo. El sexo no deja resaca ni heridas, se nos dice ya en la primera película (“Dr. No”, 1962) tras el encuentro que Bond mantiene, al principio, con una morena que no saldrá en lo que quede de película. El espectador, como el protagonista, se olvidará rápidamente de ella, centrando su atención en Ursula Andress. No es precisamente ésta la sensación que el lector tiene al terminar la primera novela de Fleming (“Casino Royale”, 1953), cuando se constata la tragedia en que acaba un proyecto amoroso que parecía realizable: la amante de Bond, Vesper, en realidad una espía soviética, se suicida al enamorarse del hombre al que le habían ordenado traicionar.

Este patrón narrativo (por el cual una relación amorosa se frustra debido a los letales ases que ella se saca de la manga) sostenido, en última instancia, en la explotación de la figura de la femme fatale que produce el género negro, no será habitual en las novelas posteriores, cuyas historias se suelen resolver en exitosas conquistas sexuales. Este es el formato que definitivamente se adaptará al cine. Sólo en dos de ellas dichas conquistas se frustrarán (en mayor o menor grado), bien porque la femme fatale volverá a hacer acto de presencia (Desde Rusia con amor) o porque la mujer amada es asesinada (Al servicio secreto de su Majestad). Sin embargo, una lectura más atenta, nos dará cuenta de que el carácter traicionero de los personajes femeninos que inventa Fleming se proyecta en otras relaciones (la del villano con “su chica”, sin ir más lejos) beneficiando de hecho protagonista de que éstas se rompan. Esto ocurre prácticamente en todas las novelas: la “chica” fomenta la lucha que protagonista y antagonista mantienen por ella, dándole ella además término por medio de un acto de traición que acelerará las cosas. La influencia del género negro es aquí evidente.

Ahora bien, una situación semejante trasladada al mundo del espionaje, en la cual la mujer, además de incitadora de enfrentamiento, se siente, como Vesper de Casino Royale, moralmente culpable de ello debido al conflicto entre sus deseos y sus obligaciones debidas, es tratada paralelamente por Hitchcock en “Encadenados (1946)”. En este caso, la película nos habla de un hombre, interpretado por Claude Rains que, como Bond, se entrega irracionalmente a una Ingrid Bergman que, como Vesper, en realidad es espía del enemigo. El personaje de Ingrid Bergman no disfruta, además, como Vesper, de su doble juego: la culpa le atenaza constantemente, así como el miedo a la reacción implacable de sus superiores al constatar cualquier desvío. Es el mismo miedo que conduce a Vesper al suicidio. ¿Fue Fleming, en este caso, influido por la película Encadenados? No resulta descabellado pensarlo, máxime cuando el propio Fleming defendía que Cary Grant fuera el actor destinado a adaptar a su personaje en la pantalla. Con toda seguridad estaba recordando el papel que el propio Grant hizo cuando actúo de espía en Encadenados. No en vano, el papel protagonista que tiene Grant en dicha película se aleja del hombre gris, incapaz de vivir, que fundó la literatura de espías (v.g. el Ashenden de Sommerset Maugham), adquiriendo un carácter más aventurero, como el de Bond (recordemos que Encadenados es siete años anterior a la novela Casino Royale). Esto nos lleva precisamente al segundo aspecto del asunto, aunque mejor será dejarlo para otro día.

Bienvenidos a todos a este blog, creado para emprender el desciframiento de los códigos cinematográficos, sacar a la luz su genealogía. El cine se ha revelado en el último siglo como un poderoso ámbito prefigurador de la experiencia ordinaria. Las producciones cinematográficas contribuyen al desarrollo de un lenguaje no sistemático que atraviesa los cuerpos y mediatiza su interacción, creando así ese tipo de experiencia que se ha dado en llamar “cultura popular”. Aquellas redes de signos que, recorren y atraviesan películas, libros, videojuegos, productos de consumo audiovisual en general forman un todo de influencias cruzadas y diversificadas en múltiples recorridos, si bien el significante-película es, sin duda, la fórmula que más eficazmente contribuye a expandirlos, que mejor y más velozmente se adapta (se ha adaptado) a las condiciones materiales de la interacción. Lo que aquí queremos es, por tanto, arrojarnos a esa multiplicidad de significantes que subyacen al Significante y sacar a la luz sus “parecidos de familia”, configurando así constelaciones que den cuenta de dicha diversidad de influencias cruzadas. Así pues, os animo, queridos lectores, a que acompañeis mi tarea con vuestra atención y comentarios.
El siguiente post irá dedicado a la influencia que la obra de Hitchcock ejerce sobre las novelas y películas de James Bond

Amiable, sexy, witty, lighthearted entertainment, Alfred Hitchcock’s romance on the French Riviera, To Catch a Thief, nevertheless contains elements that stress this description of it. The principal element of this kind has to do with the past of John Robie, whose inconspicuous retirement from notorious jewel thievery is interrupted by a series of “cat burglaries” that duplicates his old modus operandi. But that is not the element of Robie’s past to which I refer; for, before becoming a jewel thief, Robie was a member of the French Resistance during the Occupation. Robie’s parole, as well as that of confederates in the Resistance who also turned to crime after the war, acknowledged his status as national hero.
     I am not sure why this aspect of Robie’s past is so often overlooked, but it means everything to me. John Robie is not French; perhaps he is American. When in the film he assumes a false identity, he claims to come from Portland, Oregon—the birthplace of John Reed, who as a journalist covered the Mexican and Bolshevik Revolutions, and who, committed to its cause of social justice, closely involved himself with the Bolshevik government. However, Robie’s wartime activism more strikingly resembles that of Americans who fought in the Spanish Civil War against Franco’s forces.
     The opening shot is of the store window of a travel agency; it is adorned by posters advertising France. I feel it may be somewhat condescending to attribute Hitchcock’s making the film to his love of foreign travel. His desire to visit the French Riviera coincides with the graver reason to relocate to a foreign country that his protagonist’s past reflects. Hitchcock the artist, even here, trumps Hitchcock the tourist.
     The film, it seems to me, asks us to consider the fate of such wartime heroes as the current and former criminal characters in it demonstrate. Their lives and activities were ones of terrific risk; what “second act” was then possible? A suggestion of causality arises; John Robie became “The Cat” to revive the riskiness of his wartime activities for which, with the end of the war, he had become nostalgic. Indeed, the plot he pursues to prove his innocence of the current rash of hotel and palatial home jewelry heists revives the old spirit of danger. He feels alive again, focused, purposeful; but a shift in times may also shift allegiances, and one-half of the danger he faces—the other half of it comes from the police—comes from old confederates in what was once their common cause.
     As Peter Bogdanovich points out in his often brilliant commentary for the DVD of To Catch a Thief, Hitchcock, preferring suspense to surprise, generally disdained “whodunits”—and, no doubt about it, To Catch a Thief is a whodunit. However, its being so perfectly suits the thematic material at hand. To Catch a Thief is very much a film about identity, about false identity and usurped identity—about “knowing” who you are when, absorbed in momentous or pressing activity, you don’t have time or the inclination to think about it, and suddenly not being so sure of yourself in another time, in other circumstances. Keep in mind that Robie’s “retirement” has been forced upon him by officialdom. In an imaginative sense, Robie is responsible for the new crime wave because it speaks to his heart’s desire to be emphatically himself again, and it provides the opportunity for his reconstitution and re-integration. Yes, yes, the film is charming and delightful beyond measure, one of Hitchcock’s most entertaining movies, but it isn’t just that.
     Robert Burks won an Oscar for his gorgeous VistaVision color cinematography, which achieves its deepest, loveliest results on rooftops at night when either or both the burglar and, in pursuit of the burglar, Robie are prowling like cats. (There is even an actual black cat that also is shown on the hotel roof.) (Perhaps it is the coincidence of my recent film-viewing chronology, but these dreamy, borderline fantastic scenes remind me of the dark, spacious room in which the solitudinous Queen, moving slowly like a cat, confronts her Magic Mirror in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1937). Abetted by Burks, Hitchcock thus finds the visual means of conjuring an eerie and even melancholy realm where identity is hidden, lost and pursued.
     Cary Grant and Grace Kelly are both breathtakingly beautiful, each in more than one way, in the lead roles. Indeed, Kelly, as Bogdanovich points out, steals the movie, as a sophisticated, opinionated socialite from Philadelphia (where else?). Her mother, played wonderfully by Jessie Royce Landis, is the kind of rich widow that Uncle Charlie dispatched in Hitchcock’s own favorite among his films, Shadow of a Doubt (1943)—but here she is viewed largely sympathetically. Hers is the character, though, that extinguishes a cigarette in a breakfast egg yoke, as a not-so-sympathetic woman extinguishes a cigarette in a jar of cold cream in Hitchcock’s Rebecca (1940), whose first movement opens on the French Riviera.

My Top 10:

Victor McLaglen in his Oscar winning role in The Informer (1935)

1. The Informer
2. Bride of Frankenstein
3. The 39 Steps
4. Les Miserables
5. Mutiny on the Bounty
6. The Man Who Knew Too Much
7. Captain Blood
8. Top Hat
9. A Night at the Opera
10. A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Academy Awards:

• Best Picture:  Mutiny on the Bounty
• Best Director:  John Ford  (The Informer)
• Best Actor:  Victor McLaglen  (The Informer)
• Best Actress:  Bette Davis  (Dangerous)
• Best Screenplay:  The Informer (from the story by Liam O’Flaherty)
• Best Original Story:  The Scoundrel

TSPDT Consensus Top 5 Films:

• A Night at the Opera – #202
• Bride of Frankenstein – #223
• Top Hat – #307
• The 39 Steps – #309
• Triumph of the Will – #347

Top 5 Awards Points:

1. The Informer – 635
2. Mutiny on the Bounty – 410
3. Lives of a Bengal Lancer – 220
4. A Midsummer Night’s Dream – 150
5. Ruggles of Red Gap – 120

Consensus Awards Winners:

• Best Picture:  The Informer
• Best Director:  John Ford  (The Informer)
• Best Actor:  Charles Laughton  (Mutiny on the Bounty / Les Miserables / Ruggles of Red Gap)
• Best Actress:  Bette Davis  (Dangerous) / Greta Garbo  (Anna Karenina)

AFI Top 100 Films:

• Mutiny on the Bounty – #86  (1998 – not on 2007 poll)
• A Night at the Opera – #85  (2007 – not on 1998 poll)

Nighthawk Awards:

• 

  Katharine Hepburn was denied her second Oscar for Alice Adams (1935)

• Best Picture:  The Informer
• Best Director:  John Ford  (The Informer)
• Best Actor:  Charles Laughton  (Mutiny on the Bounty)
• Best Actress:  Katharine Hepburn  (Alice Adams)
• Best Supporting Actor:  W.C. Fields  (David Copperfield)
• Best Supporting Actress:  Una O’Connor  (The Informer)
• Best Adapted Screenplay:  The Informer (from the story by Liam O’Flaherty)
• Best Original Screenplay:  The Man Who Knew Too Much

Nighthawk Notables:

• Best Film to Watch Over and Over:  Bride of Frankenstein
• Best Scene:  the cabin scene in A Night at the Opera
• Best Ending:  Bride of Frankenstein (“You go.  We belong dead.”)
• Best Line:  If we shadows have offended / Think but this and all is mended / That you have but slumbered here / While these visions did appear / And this weak and idle theme / Yielding no more but a dream / And as I am an honest Puck / If we have unearned luck / Now to ’scape the serpent’s tongue / We shall make amends ‘ere long / Else the Puck a liar call / So good night unto you all / Give me your hands if we be friends / And Robin shall restore amends  (A Midsummer Night’s Dream – Mickey Rooney – still in my memory 23 years after being in the play in 6th grade)
• See the Movie – Don’t Read the Book:  The 39 Steps

Ebert Great Movies:

• Bride of Frankenstein
• Top Hat
• Triumph of the Will

At the very moment where American movies were taking their place at the top of the pile (notice I have no Best Foreign Film for 1935), we have a disgusting reminder of the power of film with Triumph of the Will, the all important documentary from Leni Reifenstahl that documented a Nuremberg rally and the utter worship of Adolf Hitler.  There was no question that this was powerful propaganda (as Hollywood knew could happen – the year before, Louis B. Mayer had used newsreel films critical of Upton Sinclair to keep him from becoming Governor of California), a stunning look at the pure craftsmanship of political construction were those rallies, and the only real antidote to watching the film (and a pure interest in film history is the only reason to watch it) is to watch Night and Fog, a film just as disturbing in the naked depiction of what the Nazism of Reifenstahl’s film would result in.

The Informer, in spite of terrible box office, is widely acclaimed as the best film of the year, winning both critics groups and several Oscars, while losing Best Picture, yet today doesn’t get the acclaim.  Bride of Frankenstein brings the Golden Age of Horror to an end.  While Universal will continue to churn out Horror films, they will decrease in quality.  Only twice in the next 25 years will a Horror film make my Top 10.

Film History: David O. Selznick leaves MGM and becomes an independent producer.  20th Century Fox and Republic Pictures are founded.  Errol Flynn stars in Captain Blood, becoming a star.  Becky Sharp, the first three-color Technicolor feature film, is released.  The Museum of Modern Art establishes its film library.  Porky Pig debuts, the first of what will become the Loony Tunes characters.  Will Rogers dies in a plane crash in Alaska.

Academy Awards: For the last time, we have a film (Mutiny on the Bounty) win Best Picture and nothing else.  Mutiny does set a new record though with 8 nominations and is the first film with 3 acting nominations (all for Best Actor).  The Informer, on the other hand, wins 4 Oscars, the second most at the time, but fails to win Best Picture.  It will be 13 years before a film again wins Director and Screenplay without winning Picture.  Bette Davis makes up for her snub the year before by winning Best Actress, the first widely accepted example of a “make-up Oscar”, possibly costing Katharine Hepburn a second Oscar.  A Midsummer Night’s Dream becomes the only film to win an Oscar (Best Cinematography) without an actual nomination due to the allowing of write-in votes.  Write-ins finish in second place for Best Actor (Paul Muni in Black Fury) and Director (Captain Blood) while Captain Blood comes in third for Screenplay and Score as a write-in.  The Academy adds a new category, Dance Direction, will which only last a few years.

• Worst Oscar:  Best Sound for Naughty Marietta
• Worst Oscar Nomination:  Best Picture for Naughty Marietta
• Worst Oscar Omission:  Best Cinematography for Bride of Frankenstein
• Worst Oscar Category:  Best Cinematography – ignored Bride of Frankenstein, The Informer and Captain Blood – and the winner was a write-in (and better than the actual nominees)
• Best Oscar Category:  Best Song – I would have gone with “Cheek to Cheek” for the win, but definitely three great nominees

Awards: The New York Film Critics Circle decided that they wanted in on the awards action, so they broke out with their initial awards in 1935.  They and the NBR pick The Informer for Best Picture.  This begins a trend as five more times in the next decade a film will win both critics groups and all five times that film will lost at the Oscars (Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, The Citadel, The Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane, In Which We Serve).  While the NBR continues with a Best Foreign Film (Chapayev), the NYFC decides to give a Best Director (eventual Oscar winner John Ford), Best Actor (Charles Laughton for his work throughout the year) and Greta Garbo (who fails to get nominated by the Academy for Anna Karenina).

Peter Lorre menacing Leslie Banks in The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), Hitchcock's first great film

Under-appreciated film of 1935:

The Man Who Knew Too Much (dir. Alfred Hitchcock)

This film is so under-appreciated that it is ranked 32nd among Hitchcock’s films on the IMDb, behind such mediocre films as I Confess, Marnie and the remake.  I personally find it to be the 11th best Hitchcock film.  It was Hitchcock’s first great film, the one that established him as a master of suspense.  It is so obviously superior to the re-make that I can’t understand why anyone would champion the latter.

What does the re-make have in its corner?  Jimmy Stewart.  Jimmy Stewart proved over the course of several films that he was the proper lead for Hitchcock in an emotional role (to counter-act Cary Grant in a more comedic role – Hitchcock’s opinion as put forth in Hitchcock/Truffaut) and in he, of course, is the emotional core of the re-make.  But on the other hand, the re-make also has Doris Day, in Hitchcock’s continual quest to replace Grace Kelly as the perfect icy blonde, has the annoying child and simply takes too long.  Hitchcock, in the book, talks about how the longer scene at the Royal Albert Hall allows for a greater feeling of suspense, but it just makes it seem to take so much longer (that and Doris Day was so badly miscast – the only reason for casting her was the song “Que Sera Sera” which seems so out of place in a Hitchcock film).

Then look at the earlier film.  Yes, it is not particularly technically polished.  It is the work of someone younger, with a British cinema that is not as advanced.  But it has suspense, it has style, it moves, it flows, it doesn’t crawl along.  Did you really need 120 minutes to tell the same story that you had already done in 75?  And it has the teenage daughter as opposed to the young son, so much more interesting, both in the opening scene, and at the conclusion, out on the rooftop.

Then there is the most important aspect of the original: Peter Lorre.  The story goes that Lorre didn’t actually know English yet, that he faked his way through his interview with Hitchcock and learned his part phonetically.  It doesn’t really matter.  Lorre was a master actor, who had already given one of the great screen performances in M and had fled Nazi Germany.  This film was the beginning of a long and fruitful career as one of the best character actors in film.  He would later team again with Hitchcock in a brilliant, bizarre performance in The Secret Agent, but here, he is so despicable, so subtly slimy and creepy.  The language barrier only adds to the performance.  How could adding Jimmy Stewart possibly make up for the loss of Peter Lorre?  While the Academy did film a great dis-service by never awarding an Oscar to Claude Rains, the greatest of all character actors, they did an even greater dis-service by never even nominating Peter Lorre, for a masterful career that included M, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Secret Agent, The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca and Casbah.  Every time he appeared on screen, you could instantly think to yourself, I should never, ever trust that man.  That career truly began in this role and if you haven’t seen it, you owe it to yourself and seek it.  Skip the re-make.

Forleden aften så jeg en film, der er stort set umulig at anmelde på normal vis. Det var nemlig ikke så meget en film, som det var en begivenhed. Der er tale om lavbudget-gyseren Paranormal Activity, årets sensation i filmverdenen; ikke på grund af dens kunstneriske kvaliteter, men fordi den på rekordtid har skudt sig ind som filmhistoriens måske mest indbringende produktion.

Paranormal Activity kommer først ud i de danske biografer 4. december, men jeg var så “heldig” (tvivlsomt!) at se filmen ved en snigpremiere i Grand tirsdag aften arrangeret af det anbefalelsesværdige filmmagasin Ekko. Til at introducere fænomenet havde Ekko inviteret selveste Jacob Stegelmann, dette fyrtårn af viden ud i populærkulturens afkroge, hvilket han gjorde på særdeles veloplagt og inspirerende vis med masser af syrlige glimt i øjet. “I er blevet snydt og bedraget!” som han provokerende lagde ud med at fortælle os, hvorpå han berettede om exploitation-filmens spraglede historie. Paranormal Activity udspringer nemlig af en lang og herligt lurvet tradition, hvor spekulation og købmandskab går forud for alt andet. Det handler om at tjene flest mulig penge ved at holde produktionsomkostningerne på et absolut minimum og dernæst på opfindsom vis vække publikums opsigt. En form for markedsgøgl, som Stegelmann kaldte det.

Det anslås, at Paranormal Activity er lavet for det latterligt lave beløb af 15.000 $ (eller “4 kroner”, som Stegelmann formulerede det), men til dato har den skrabet omkring 100 mio. $ ind i de amerikanske biografer, hvilket enhver kan sige sig selv er en bragende god forretning. Til sammenligning har Sam Raimis særdeles fremragende og fornøjelige Drag Me to Hell kostet 30 mio. $ at producere og indtjent 42 mio. $ på samme marked. Hvilket blot understreger, at der sjældent er retfærdighed til i denne verden, men lad os nu ikke blive hellige. I profitmæssig henseende må Paranormal Activity kaldes en ualmindeligt fed fidus, ingen tvivl om det!

Filmen er lavet af den ukendte Oren Peli, som har filmet historien med to af sine venner i de altdominerende hovedroller i sit eget hus ved brug af ét eneste håndholdt kamera. Handlingen er simpel og skåret over en klassisk læst; det er kendetegnende for exploitation, at der netop appelleres til publikum med velprøvede genreklichéer. Kvinden Katie påstår, at hun har været (for)fulgt af overnaturlige hændelser, siden hun var 8 år, men selvom deres hus plages af uforklarlige lyde, stiller hendes kæreste Micah sig noget skeptisk. Han går dog med til at forsøge at dokumentere ’spøgeriet’ ved hjælp af et filmkamera, som bliver vores (publikums) eneste holdepunkt igennem hele filmen. Filmens claim to fame har været, at folkene bag via sociale netværk – nutidens mund-til-mund-metode – har ladet sive, at den er en af alle tiders uhyggeligste film. I lighed med den 10 år gamle Blair Witch Project har det været hævdet, at filmens materiale og historie var ægte. Det har desuden forlydt, at selveste Steven Spielberg (som har hjulpet filmen frem) efter at have set Paranormal Activity fragtede sin kopi rundt i en plasticpose, fordi han mente, at filmen var så uhyggelig, at den måtte være forbandet. Ja, da! Sammenholdt med en særdeles effektiv markedsføringskampagne, hvor en trailer bl.a. har vist et angiveligt biografpublikums rædselsslagne reaktion på en visning af filmen, har det skabt den overvældende succés.

Men hvor Paranormal Activity scorer topkarakter, når det kommer til promovering, kan dens filmiske værdi ligge på et meget lille sted. Handlingen er temmelig dum og bravt kedsommelig og i mine øjne kun lettere uhyggelig henimod slutningen, hvilket på ingen måde er nok til at retfærdiggøre den megen hype. Som Jacob Stegelmann føler jeg også en forpligtelse til at modsige de røster, der har sammenlignet filmen med mesteren Alfred Hitchcock, blot fordi den baserer sin uhygge på suspense. Det er komplet misforstået – på samme måde som Stegelmann påpegede det absurde i, at dette stykke markedsgøgl ved tirsdagens snigpremiere blev vist i filmkunstens højborg, Grand, når tvivlsomt repertoire som Paranormal Activity retteligen hører hjemme i snuskede små sidegadebiografer.

Oren Pelis fupnummer er talk of the town lige nu, men jeg spår, at hvor føromtalte Drag Me to Hell vil få et langt og rigt liv i filmsamlinger verden over, vil Paranormal Activity som den dårlige vittighed, den er, være lykkelig glemt om et par måneder. Jeg vil blive meget forbløffet, hvis filmen kommer til at få et salg af betydning på dvd og blu-ray, da vi har at gøre med et fænomæn, hvis eneste raison d’être består i, at den via snedig markedsføring har formået at blive giraffen, som alle vil se i øjeblikket. Men i virkeligheden har giraffen slet ikke noget tøj på. Verden vil bedrages. Jeg lod mig bedrage, men fortryder ikke, da jeg holder min faglige nysgerrighed ansvarlig.

Så meget klogere kan jeg nu fundere over filmens danske motto: ‘Se den ikke alene’. Det kan snildt ændres til: SE DEN IKKE! Den har tjent mere end nok allerede uden din hjælp…

So I’ve been going back and forth about just how biographical to go with the blog. I certainly want to set up where he was working, who he was working with, and how he got there to a certain extent, but is it really necessary to do much beyond that? Well, let’s see:

Hitchcock was born August 13, 1899 in Leytonstone, London. He was educated in primarily Catholic schools, then went to work for W.T. Henley’s Telegraph Works, first as a cable layer, then as an advertiser. While there, he wrote stories for a newsletter published by the company, many of which show already his kind of humor. You can read a particularly good one here.

(It’s taken from a book I’m reading on Hitchcock by Patrick McGilligan called Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. The book is pretty decent so far, and will be filling us in for a while on the biographical points that I need as we go along. I’ll try to look through some others, but as far as I know, this is the most accurate, if not the most interesting bio we have of Hitchcock.)

After he decided he was pretty good at being creative, he jumped on the British Players-Lasky Company, the British branch of an American film company. British films at the time were considered all around inferior in quality to American movies, mostly because of World War I. British Players-Lasky was an attempt to bring American quality standards to British film. They took on Hitch as a title card writer for the silent films they were producing, and he also acted as art director on a few, so had a pretty visual outlook on things, compared to most directors of the period. British Players-Lasky eventually folded, though, and Hitchcock moved on to Gainsborough, a similar, albeit all-British, company. After doing some more title card work, he was hired to direct the Pleasure Garden, which is the first film I’ll cover.

Oh, at BPL he met Alma Reville, a “script girl” (helped to write, and do continuity type stuff). They didn’t really talk for a few years, and then he called her to ask her to work on a film at Gainsborough with him. They hit it off, doing lots of travelling together, as British filmmakers loved to film on the continent, rather than dreary England. She was the only girl he ever dated, as far as he’ll say.

A note about that: Hitchcock often liked to tell anecdotes, and wasn’t always reliable as far as truthiness goes. For instance, about his childhood he would say that when he would misbehave, his father would write a note, then send him to the police station to hand it to an officer. The officer would then lock him in prison for a few hours, saying “This is what happens to naughty boys.” Nobody else remembers this. But it makes for a great story, and could very well be true.

But. That’s all. As you can see, his life is pretty boring up to this point. Devoid of the sex, murder, and intrigue characteristic of one of his films. That’s why I’m hesitant to say too much about his life outside of work. It’s what he did. And he did alot of it. So, this will probably be the only post specifically about biography.

From here on out, it’s all about the films.

The lovely couple working on The Pleasure Garden. Alma is right of Hitch. She'd often be by his side, and helped him creatively in a lot of ways, but how much is always up for debate.

Saw Dial ‘M’ for Murder yesterday, and it confirmed to me that she is undoubtedly the most gorgeous classic Hollywood blonde. I don’t think anyone could forget this sequence:

A day later and I share some thoughts.

1.  I don’t think Hitchcock is anti-Russian, but he is anti-young, anti-finesse, pro-defense, and pro-large size.  Earlier this season, I watched the Jackets play Calgary on the Flames’ broadcast and the announcers all marveled that Kris Russell is still on the team because he doesn’t fit the Ken Hitchcock mold.  Before you conclude that Hitchcock must be changing, remember that for Hitch it was either Kris Russell or Duvie Westcott. A very easy choice.

2.  Is Nikita Filatov spoiled?  No, he would have made less money in Syracuse and he clearly belonged in the NHL.  But not in Columbus.  Burning bridges in Columbus would not have helped him negotiate with other NHL teams in the future.  So he gets to play every day and make a decent wage in Russia. I’ve met him on two occasions and he was gracious and friendly, looking like a nervous high school senior.  Filatov looked at others in his draft class and thought that he belonged, but he wasn’t getting the chance.  Ryan Kesler played just one season at OSU and thought the same thing, much to the chagrin of those around him.

3.  The situation is not the best for the organization.  Yes, Filatov is slated to return next season, but that is next season.  The Jackets drafted yet another first round player who is not with the team today.  Will other finesse players want to come here as a free agent?  If they are 6′2″, weigh at least 210, and hit everything that moves, maybe.

4.  Is there a rift between Howson and Hitchcock.  Probably, but not a large one.  The team currently is winning and the majority of players that Howson picked are acceptable to Hitchcock, so one difference of opinion is not unusual.  The two men are going to have to reach some sort of understanding because there are only so many Hitchcock-type players out there.

Well, that was fast.

The Columbus Blue Jackets have loaned forward Nikita Filatov to CSKA (pronounced CHESH-ka) of the Kontinental Hockey League for the remainder of the 2009-10 season, General Manager Scott Howson announced November 17.  more

Don’t tell me about your building program anymore, Jackets.  Anyone can put players on the ice, but I expected you guys to coach and develop them.  If the road to the playoffs is built with Tom Sestito and Alexander Picard, you’ve lost me.