“Coge todo lo que hayas oído decir; todo lo que hayas oído decir en tu vida… Multiplícalo por cien, y seguirás sin tener una idea de John Ford”. James Stewart.

El hombre que mató a Liberty Valance (1962)

Peter Bogdanovich: Hacia el principio de Liberty Valance, cuando va Vera Miles a la casa quemada de Wayne, ¿no es la música de Ann Rutledge de Young Mr. Lincoln?

John Ford: Sí, era la misma: se la compramos a Al Newman. Me encanta; es una de mis músicas favoritas, de las que puedo tararear. Por lo general, me fastidia la música en las películas, un poco por aquí y por allá, al principio o al final, pero las cosas como el tema de Ann Rutledge encajan. No me gusta ver a un hombre en el desierto, muriéndose de sed, respaldado por la Orquesta de Filadelfia.

PB: Da la sensación de que en Liberty Valance sus simpatías están con John Wayne y el Viejo Oeste.

JF: Bueno, de hecho el protagonista era Wayne; Jimmy Stewart tenía más escenas, pero era Wayne el personaje central, el motivo de todo. No sé… me gustaban los dos. Creo que los dos eran buenos personajes, y me gustaba el argumento, nada más. Yo soy un director duro; me dan un guión: si me gusta, lo hago. O si digo, “ah, esto está bien”, lo hago. Si no me gusta, lo rechazo.

PB: Pero al final de la película parecía bastante claro que Vera Miles seguía enamorada de Wayne.

JF: Bueno, era la que pretendíamos.

PB: Su imagen del Oeste se ha ido haciendo cada vez más triste, como por ejemplo la diferencia de humor entre Wagon Master y Liberty Valance.

JF: Quizá, no lo sé; no soy psicólogo. A lo mejor estoy envejeciendo.

John Ford. Peter Bogdanovich.

CLICK FOR TRAILER

What?

James Stewart stars as the good-natured Elwood P. Dowd, whose constant companion is Harvey, a six-foot tall rabbit that only he can see. To his sister, Veta Louise, Elwood’s obsession with Harvey has been a thorn in the side of her plans to marry off her daughter. But when Veta Louise decides to put Elwood in a mental hospital, a hilarious mix-up occurs and she finds herself committed instead.

It’s up to Elwood to straighten out the mess with his kindly philosophy, and his ‘imaginary’ friend, in this popular classic.

Where?

On a coach on the way back from seeing the volcanoes of Lanzarote.

With?

A ton of people who are asleep.

Why?

One of the main reasons for setting myself the challenge of watching all these movies was to watch the classics that I have never gotten around to seeing. Harvey was one of the top of my list, it’s a movie my mum adores and has gone on and on at me to watch when I was younger.

Better late than never mum.

Worth It?

Delightful movie, absolute joy to watch.

Funny, charming, dramatic, sad, well written, superbly performed work of pure brilliance. Stewart is immense in creating the single most likeable character I have seen on-screen, Dowd is a character who takes the best of the world and radiates it on his peers which is mistaken for insanity…well…that and the 7ft rabbit.

The wonder turn of Harvey is the decision to leave it up to the viewer if Dowd is insane or not, clues are littered throughout the scenes hinting at his insanity as well as the possible existence of Harvey.

I go on and on about movies to watch on a Sunday afternoon, I know I do. This movie is Sunday incarnate. Have a roast dinner and then chill and watch this movie, because I can guarantee it will help you forget that you have to go back to hel…I mean work the next day.

9/10

Is there a better actor of all time than James Stewart? I think he is my favorite, and there have been some mighty fine actors through the years.

Every day on TV or the radio, the back and forth squabbles between our political parties continue. This not the place to say who is right or who is wrong, we each have our opinions. It just depends on who has the majority as to which party will be out to foil the other.

I was thinking about this when I decided to find a clip from one of my all time favorite movies, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Jimmy Stewart was so good in this movie. He was nominated for the academy award but did not win. He may not have won, but he won me over with his performance.

Here is about the last 10 minutes of the movie. Jimmy Stewart at his best.

Rope

Pais: EU
Año: 1948
Género: Intriga
Duración: 80 min.
Dirección: Alfred Hitchcock
Guion: Arthur Laurents & Hume Cronyn
Música: Leo F. Forbstein
Producción: Warner Bros. Pictures

Reparto:
James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger, Cedric Hardwicke, Joan Chandler, Douglas Dick.

Descripción:

A casa de dos estudiantes van llegando personajes a los que han invitado a una especie de fiesta fin de curso. Al invitado que más temen es su tutor y profesor de criminología, una astuto criminólogo que defiende la no existencia del crimen perfecto. Ellos, precisamente, están preocupados porque tienen un cadáver en el arcón que sirve como mesa para la cena. Se trata de un amigo mutuo y prometido de una antigua novia

de uno de ellos. Con el asesinato intentan demostrar al profesor que sí existe el crimen perfecto. A lo largo de la noche, el profesor va comprendiendo que los dos amigos han asesinado a uno de sus alumnos y, utilizando métodos deductivos, intenta descubrirlos, desarmando sus coartadas.

Críticas:
Maravilla a tiempo real. Impresionante. Una gran obra muy bien desarrollada que con solo un par de escenarios consigue captar la atención del espectador durante todo el metraje creando una atmosfera de tensión logradísima. En mi opinión, una de las mejores obras de éste gran director.
Muy muy muy recomendable.

Datos técnicos:
Tamaño:  1,13  Gb
Duracion: 01:17:27
Vídeo codec: Xvid (doble pasada)
Resolución: 640 x 464 Bitrate: 1833 Kbps. Qf: 0.247
Audio codec: Mp3 Cbr
Bitrate Castellano/Inglés: 48000Hz  128 kb/s total (2 chnls)
Subtítulos : [Castellano - Inglés]

Capturas:

Película

Subs.es-en

]]> http://rossiproject.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/ross-is-back-home/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:28:09 +0000 Admin http://rossiproject.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/ross-is-back-home/ http://nuclearfuzion.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/james-stewart-aka-bubba-eero-ettala/ Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:16:45 +0000 nuclearfuzion http://nuclearfuzion.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/james-stewart-aka-bubba-eero-ettala/

posted by: chemalopez

Cuarto paso, incluir un carácter burlesco

En la mayor parte de las películas de Hitchcock, uno (como mínimo) de sus personajes nunca se toma en serio el asesinato, llegando incluso a burlarse.
El ejemplo más memorable lo encontramos, probablemente,  en la película Sombra de una duda (Shadow of a Doubt, 1943), cuando Henry Travers y Hume Cronyn intercambian, durante todo el relato, diferentes formas de asesinar sin ser descubiertos. Sus conversaciones sobre el “asesinato perfecto” mutuo, suponen un gran contrapeso de todas sus conversaciones al clima de tensión que va en aumento en la historia. El resultado es una película híbrida entre la comedia y suspense.

En Extraños en un tren (Strangers on a train, 1951) el desequilibrado personaje interpretado por Robert Walker enseña a una mujer entrada en años cómo se debe estrangular. La escena es demoledora: Bruno Anthony – que así se llama el psicópata – entabla conversación en una fiesta con dos ostentosas ancianas, que ríen intentado averiguar cuál es la forma más eficiente para cometer un asesinato. Desconocen, como casi todos los invitados, que tienen enfrente a un verdadero asesino, el cual se ofrece a enseñarles un método. Ellas acceden, aún entre risas. Pero, y aquí es donde Hitchcock es mucho Hitchcock, surge algo inesperado que devuelve a la anciana a la “verdadera realidad” del asesinato: un juego ya no tan divertido.

Aunque recomiendo verla entera, dejo la escena descrita de Strangers on a train.

Veámos otros ejemplos. En La soga (Rope, 1948), Constance Collier se ríe histéricamente de Rupert’s (James Stewart) ante la idea de asesinar a personas por deporte. De nuevo, una mujer de edad avanzada toma la idea del asesinato como algo absurdo e improbable.

Y un ejemplo más conocido, en La ventana indiscreta (Rear window, 1954) tenemos a Thelma Ritter reaccionando ante la posibilidad de un asesinato al otro lado del patio.

1. Rear Window
2. Vertigo
3. North By Northwest
4. Psycho
5. Notorious
6. The Birds
7. Strangers On A Train
8. Rebecca
9. Shadow Of A Doubt
10. Rope

NP: Oxbow – Songs For The French

Data
Title: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Year: 1939
Length: 129 minutes
Director: Frank Capra
Writer: Sidney Buchman, story by Lewis R. Foster
Starring: Jean Arthur, James Stewart, Claude Rains
Music: Dimitri Tiomkin
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Story; currently #111 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a boyscout leader appointed to the senate stands up to corruption
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), a couple days ago
Concept: Good.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. To say that to say that Stewart’s performance carries this movie would be an understatement would be an understatement.
Music: Indifferent. Corny and way over-the-top.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). The ending is very abrupt. And it’s a bit depressing to compare the Washington in the film to modern day politics. (I mean, really, a senator’s career being threatened by it being known that he did something in the interest of a business? Talk about suspension of disbelief…) But this is probably the ultimate Jimmy Stewart movie. He is constantly – every second he’s on screen – giving what’s probably the best performance of his career.
Objective Rating: 9/10 (Very good).

There’s something comforting about watching an old movie from the 40s or 50s. Life seemed so much simpler then. The characters were so glamorous, always dressed to the hilt — beautiful gowns, sharp suits, silk gloves. Gauzy curtains and sweeping sofas. Cocktails. Civil shallow conversation. Men always treated women like princesses, and women were attentive and gracious.

When I hear Jimmy Stewart’s voice or an imitation of him, I’m transported to that time. There’s something so comforting about the slur of his s’es. Admittedly, I’ve never seen a full Jimmy Stewart movie, only snippets of It’s a Wonderful Life or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Rear Window. If just hearing an imitation of him evokes this feeling, seeing one of his movies must be like a long orgasm.

I don’t know if he was considered a sexy star at the time. But there’s something about that voice. And voice means a lot. We judge other people by their voices. A calm, low voice tends to draw a person in. An animated voice calls for a fun time. A limp, droning voice is a downer. A high, tightly wound voice grates on one’s nerves.

This calls for adding Jimmy Stewart movies to my Netflix queue. I’m in need of comfort. Who isn’t?

Keats said autumn is a time of ‘mists and mellow fruitfulness’, but it seems to me it’s more masquerades and fruity madness.  From Halloween to Christmas it’s the done thing to don a disguise, over do it and carve faces into your cucurbita pepo.  With the long dark evenings providing ample time for reflection and getting some Hitchcock action I got to thinking about the masks we wear day to day. 

Vertigo:  Kim Novak plays a woman (Judy), playing another woman (Madeleine), who falls in love with the guy (James (Scottie) Stewart) she’s stringing along.  Unfortunately he’s developed an infatuation with the faux Madeleine, portrayed by Judy as an elegantly disturbed, icy blonde with a penchant for staring wistfully into whirlpools; and twisting her hair into knots tighter than the tangled web of lies Judy has conspired to create with the genuine Madeleine’s wife-murdering husband.  Pant pant. Phew. Anyone feeling dizzy yet?

Anyway… the real Judy is actually a brash brunette with a line in big brassy earrings and even bigger eyebrows; and however relieved we might feel that scatty Scottie has taken it upon himself to give his girl a Gok over, when Judy-as-Madeleine-part-deux steps out of the bathroom, bathed in a ghostly green glow, it’s obvious this weird menage a trois is a menage gone mad… 

Scatty Scottie is driving both himself and Judy crazy by insisting Judy agree to be Mad-eleine (again).  And more to the point, what the hell is Judy thinking, if she is ‘thinking’ at all?! Even if Kim-Judy-Madeleine-Novak hadn’t unwittingly given the game away and pushed James (Scottie) Stewart even further to the brink of insanity, by waving that necklace around, you just know that either Madeleine-Judy will be forever reminded that her real brash brunette self is not good enough for James (Scottie) Stewart, or eventually he won’t believe in the make-believe-Madeleine any more.

Vertigo is always a film conoisseur’s fave, and I wonder partly whether it’s because we’ve probably all played one or other of the characters ourselves in real life.  We are often bewitched, bothered and bewildered by beloveds who are Frankenstein-phantasms we’ve fashioned from fairy tales.  Or, perhaps worse still, we try to squeeze our proverbial foot into the glass slipper of a guy’s imagination, and are destined to forever feel like the ugly sister. Compromising some je-ne-sais-quois-ish intangible part of us we thought we could live without can only ever end badly because two’s company but bringing along your masked alter ego for comfort ends up being a bit of a crowd.

Just a thought…

Capa do DVD

Homem simples do interior com valores morais firmes, Jefferson Smith [James Stewart] é indicado ao Senado dos EUA por causa de sua disposição dócil e manipulável. Um grupo de políticos o acompanha até Washington, onde assumirá uma cadeira no Senado. Eles o adulam para que vote a favor de um projeto do Senador Paine [Claude Rains], que por sua vez é manipulado por um empresário que controla quase toda a mídia em seu Estado. Paine incumbe a relações-públicas Clarissa Saunders [Jean Arthur] de assessorar e direcionar Smith.

Achou familiar?

Eu também. Tanto é que durante muitos anos pensei que era James Stewart que tinha feito O Galante Mr. Deeds e nunca lembro quem é que foi para Washington: a trama é bem parecida, o diretor é o mesmo Frank Capra e até a Jean Arthur aparece nos dois filmes como a garota que luta pra vencer na cidade grande, torna-se durona e se apaixona pelo homem ingênuo e de caráter firme que veio do interior.

James Stewart e Jean Arthur

A mensagem final é a mesma em ambos: o dinheiro/poder não compra a felicidade [hm, outro filme de Capra também com Stewart], vale a pena lutar por seus ideais, manter-se ético, não perder as esperanças e confiar na humanidade, o bem vence o mal, espanta o temporal, o azul, o amarelo, tudo é muito belo!

Mas, bem aqui cá entre nós, tem também uma crítica feroz contra a imprensa. Contra a classe política de modo geral, mas contra a imprensa bateu tanto nos jornalistas quanto no dono do jornal. Dizem até que as críticas da imprensa em Washington foram bastante negativas no lançamento do filme, em represália por Capra retratar os repórteres como bêbados e cruéis.

Eu revi o filme durante a crise mais recente no Senado brasileiro, o último Fora Sarney, e foi impossível não comparar a situação fictícia com a real regional, né? Nós não temos um Mr. Smith que suporte a campanha maciça de difamação – nem tanto pela força de vontade, mas pela falta de alguém com tal força de caráter – nem uma autoridade suprema que resista à pressão corporativa como o personagem de Harry Carey, nem mesmo um senador corrompido que se arrependa de seus atos e abandone o Lado Negro da Força.

Sim, tou numa fase Saunders, não Clarissa.

Mr. Smith perde a cabeça.

O filme fala bem claramente do poder do homem comum, de democracia e liberdade – mesmo liberdade de imprensa, ainda que manipulada pelo dono do jornal – em 1939, início da Segunda Guerra Mundial. Assim, não foi surpresa que tenha sido banido na Alemanha, Itália, Espanha e Rússia. Segundo a página de trívia no iMDB, Frank Capra recebeu muitas cartas de pessoas que decidiram entrar para o mundo político depois de assistir A Mulher Faz O Homem.

Quanto ao título brasileiro, não sei, me passa uma ideia diferente do que eu vi. A personagem de Jean Arthur tem, sim, uma importância enorme, ela é responsável, sim, pelo crescimento e pela força de Mr. Smith, mas, mas… Podia ser o mesmo Cornelius Cobb de Mr. Deeds, não faria diferença. Mas foi uma tentativa simpática mesmo assim, se a gente considerar que a mulher nem ao menos podia ter propriedades ou conta bancária em seu nome no Brasil antes de 1962.

Acho que é por isso que vejo determinadas primeiras-damas que se contentam com a vida de dondoca e fico pistola da vida de raiva pelo desperdício de espaço ocupado e oxigênio consumido, heh.

Nos EUA, país de origem do filme, as mulheres só adquiriram o direito de votar em 1920, meros dezenove anos antes. A primeira senadora norte-americana ficou apenas 24h no cargo e ocupou a cadeira por indicação [assim como Mr. Smith], para ocupar a vaga de seu marido falecido em 1922. A primeira senadora eleita foi Harriett Wyatt Caraway, do Estado de Arkansas, em 1932. Ela foi reeleita em 1938 e ocupou o cargo até 1945, mas, no filme, não há nenhuma senadora.

Talvez venha daí a inspiração do título brasileiro: a influência feminina na política só seria possível nos bastidores.

Ficha técnica

Título original: Mr. Smith Goes To Washington
Gênero: Drama/Comédia
Duração: 02h09
Ano de lançamento: 1939
Direção: Frank Capra
Roteiro: Sidney Buchman, a partir de história de Lewis R. Foster
Produção: Frank Capra
Música Original: Dimitri Tiomkin
Fotografia: Joseph Walker
Edição: Al Clark, Gene Havlick
Direção de Arte: Lionel Banks
Figurino: Robert Kalloch
Efeitos Sonoros: John Livadary
Efeitos Visuais: Slavko Vorkapich

Elenco
James Stewart Jefferson Smith
Jean Arthur Clarissa Saunders
Claude Rains Sen. Joseph Harrison Paine
Edward Arnold Jim Taylor
Guy Kibbee Gov. Hubert Hopper
Thomas Mitchell Diz Moore
Eugene Pallette Chick McGann
Beulah Bondi Ma Smith
H. B. Warner Sen. Agnew
Harry Carey Presidente do Senado
Astrid Allwyn Susan Paine
Ruth Donnelly Emma Hopper
Grant Mitchell Sen. Mac Pherson
Porter Hall Sen. Monroe
Pierre Watkin Sen. Barnes
William Demarest Bill Griffith
Dick Elliott Carl Cook
Billy Watson Peter Hopper
Delmar Watson Jimmie Hopper
Johnny Russell Otis Hopper
Jack Carson Sweeney Farrell
George Chandler Repórter
Edmund Cobb Sen. Gower
Ann Doran Secretária de Paine
Donald Kerr Repórter
Hank Mann Fotógrafo
Frank O’Connor Sen. Alfred
Robert Walker Sen. Holland

Serviço
Ficha no iMDB
Review no FilmSite
Verbete no Wikipedia
Women in the Senate
Facts About Women in the House and the Senate
Women’s rights na Wikipedia

Post relacionado
Mr. Deeds Goes To Town / O Galante Mr. Deeds

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington em 13 partes no Youtube, sem legenda

Parte 1

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcLCwEg9sQc

Parte 2

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t44k1hIYOnk

Parte 3

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy_ynoZjZVE

Parte 4

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxiTzjicKCs

Parte 5

ink http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV3WM1g0iMA

Parte 6

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQyOv2EolcI

Parte 7

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3YOGavoEeo

Parte 8

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJGBBIUzYM

Parte 9

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpMWlZfQG1w

Parte 10

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofv1PjHTNM0

Pàrte 11

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZiIjwETN1I

Parte 12

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqtIQFMWi4

Parte 13

Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdHBjWpyDsk

It dawned on me after I posted the previous installment of this series that I failed to write a pithy little introduction. My apologies. It is difficult when one takes into consideration that by the time I’m finished with this project I will have written about 20 such intros. What makes it even harder is that my taste in movies tends to be so eclectic, something that is really being driven home to me as I write these little dittiess, that usually there’s nothing to tie any 5 of these movies together. Today’s entry is a perfect example. There are virtually no similarities between any of these five films. I suppose the good thing is that with such a wide variety of things that I like I am bound to touch on atleast one thing or another that’ll be of interest to everyone.

65 Airplane!

If anyone were ever to build a Mount Rushmore of parody films, the first and foremost honoree would have to be Airplane!. Made in 1980, the film is meant to spoof a plethora of 70’s airline disaster flicks. It’s cast is a brilliant collection of heretofore tough guy types known for their dramatic roles, most notably Robert Stack, Leslie Nielsen, Loyd Bridges, and Peter Graves, who are very much cast against type. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar makes a super fun cameo as himself apparently trying to live a double life as an airline pilot under an assumed name. The plot involves many of the passengers and nearly the entire crew, including the pilot and co-pilot, becoming ill because of food poisoning and a passenger who just happens to be a pilot with post traumatic stress disorder being called into action to fly and land the plane. But this is another rare case where the story takes a back seat. This time though the centerpiece of hilarity are sight gags and side-splitting word play. One has to watch Airplane! a few times to take in all the visual and verbal gags. There’s Barbara Billingsley, the mother on Leave It to Beaver, speaking ebonics. The emergency autopilot is a blowup doll. A guy who thinks he’s Ethel Merman (played, in her final appearance on film, by Ethel Merman). Co-pilots named Roger and Captain Oveur (think about it). And the great thing is, it never gets old. After over a quarter century those of us who love this movie still laugh when we watch.

64 Raging Bull

Robert Deniro is such a brilliant actor that he could take the worst story imaginable and make it halfway compelling. Fortunately as real life boxer Jake Lamotta, in a film directed by the legendary Martin Scorcese, Deniro has a good story with which to work. He also has capable support from Joe Pesci in what was his first major film. I’m not a big boxing fan, but the acting and Scorcese’s style make this a modern classic. Maybe if I’d have been born a few years earlier or if I loved boxing as much as I do other sports Raging Bull would rank higher, as it does on most lists of this ilk. However, I must remain true to my own tastes and preferences, and this is where it falls on my spectrum.

63 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Readers of this series know by now of my affection for Jimmy Stewart. I’m also a bit of a political aficionado and an unabashed patriot, so Mr. Smith falls right into my wheelhouse. The story revolves around a small town yokel (a role Stewart showed many times he could play perfectly) who is handpicked to fill an open seat in the U.S. Senate. He is chosen by a corrupt political machine who believes he can be easily manipulated so they can achieve their selfish goals. The villain in this complex web of deceit is the elder senator from Stewart’s state, played by Claud Rains, who is probably better known for playing the corrupt police official in Casablanca. Rains played the role of conflicted slimeball several times and was apparently quite good at it. I’m not sure how a Frenchman snagged the role of a United States Senator, and the fact that he doesn’t really make much of an effort to hide the accent is somewhat distracting. Adding support as a caustic adminstrative aide is Jean Arthur. She is assigned the task of babysitting the doe-eyed new Senator and gradually falls for him. The plotline specifics, in which Stewart’s character wants to build a “national boys’ camp” on land that, unbeknownst to him, Rains’ character has more nefarious and profitable plans in store, are not necessarily all that crucial. The film is about political corruption, and in its time it was groundbreaking. We’ve become a much more cynical nation now. But 70 years ago a movie that took such a dark view of the inner workings of our government was quite controversial. Stewart’s performance show’s his range. Over the course of his career, from lighthearted comedies like Harvey and The Philadelphia Story through Hitchcockian fare such as Vertigo and Rear Window to hardscrabble westerns including Shenandoah and The Rare Breed Stewart did a bit of everything and proved himself to be a fine actor. With Mr. Smith he gives a small sampling of that range within one movie, goofy and fun in some scenes and dark and solemn in others. Because of the access the masses now have through things like CSPAN, the internet, and talk radio there’s not a whole lot that goes on in Washington DC that’s unknown or all that shocking. To some degree that hurts the legacy of Mr. Smith because we don’t see what the big deal is outside of Stewart’s winning charm. However, taken within the context of its time it’s quite a cinematic achievement.

62 Meet the Parents

DeNiro makes a second appearance in today’s group, so I guess I was wrong…there is a common thread after all. This time however, he’s doing comedy…and doing it surprisingly well. Meet the Parents stars Ben Stiller as a male nurse who goes home for the weekend with his girlfriend (who he is planning to make his fiancee) to…you guessed it…meet her parents. Unfortunately for Stiller, things get off on the wrong foot and get worse from there. Hilarity ensues. This is one of those movies that has more than its fair share of memorable scenes and lines, which is its main charm. Stiller has never been funnier in my opinion, and Owen Wilson has an hysterical cameo as the girlfriend’s former boyfriend. After watching this film water volleyball, Puff the Magic Dragon, airports, and cats can never be thought of like they were before…trust me. A sequel was made a few years later called Meet the Fockers. It was okay, but as with most sequels it failed to rise to the high level of the original.

61 Silence of the Lambs

Is it a horror film?? I suppose. I’m not necessarily sure how the experts categorize it. If it is officially a horror film it is most certainly on the high end…..sort of like how Dom Perrignon and Andre Extra Dry are both technically champagne but one is $150/bottle and the other is available at 7/11. Silence of the Lambs is based on a really great book about a young FBI agent who enlists the aid of a jailed, psychotic cannibal to track down a fellow serial killer. The psychotic cannibal is Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lechter and he is one of the creepiest yet most sublime creations in cinematic history as portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Unlike most maniacal killers in stereotypical gorefests (think Jason from Friday the 13^th, Leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or Freddy Krueger from Nightmare on Elm Street), Hannibal doesn’t need knives or chainsaws, doesn’t wear a mask, and doesn’t have any kind of otherworldly nonsensical powers. He’s actually pretty realistic…almost like a normal person you or I may know, may work with, or who might live down the street…except for the fact that he likes to eat humans. Jodie Foster is fantastic as Clarice Starling, the agent who looks to be in way over her head. The whodunit part of the movie is secondary to the interactions involving Hannibal and Clarice, but it’s also what separates Silence of the Lambs from the rest of the cliched mass of blood-n-guts. Sure there is some violence, but there is also a compelling story and extraordinary performances. I won’t go so far as to say the movie is better than the book, but let’s call it a tie.

Borzage (il existe deux écoles de prononciation, les pros-”Borzayghee” et les pros-”Borzaydji”, qui rappellent que l’option franchouillarde est définitivement à proscrire) est généralement considéré comme l’un des plus grands réalisateurs américains de l’entre-deux guerres. Parmi les qualités qui l’ont rendu très populaire il est à noter ce soin attentif porté au traitement de la relation amoureuse. Jamais Borzage n’évoque l’amourette mais  exalte bien au contraire l’amour fou (voir son adaptation de L’adieu aux armes). Auteur de nombreux chefs-d’œuvres mondialement salués par la critique, Borzage, de l’avis général, signe avec La tempête qui tue son dernier film d’importance. Voyons ce qu’il en est.

Dans une bourgade universitaire située dans les Alpes allemandes, Viktor Roth (Frank Morgan, vu la même année dans The Shop Around the Corner de Lubitsch tout comme James Stewart et Margaret Sullavan) est un professeur réputé et apprécié de tous (sa famille, ses collègues et ses étudiants). Nous sommes dans les derniers jours du mois de janvier 1933. Il est inutile, je pense, de vous rappeler les événements qui remuèrent l’Allemagne à cette époque mais pour bien comprendre la trame du film, il suffit d’avoir les éléments suivants en tête: Viktor Roth est l’époux d’une femme qui d’un premier mariage a eu deux fils; du second lit ils ont eu Freya (Margaret Sullavan) et un autre garçon; Freya est fiancée avec Fritz Marberg (Robert Young) et très amie avec Martin Breitner (James Stewart); Viktor Roth est juif; le fiancé de Freya et ses deux demi-frères se revendiquent ouvertement du parti nazi. L’équation est donc posée. Seul Martin Breitner n’adhère pas à l’idéologie du Führer et assiste, tout comme Freya, le professeur et sa femme, à une explosion de violence sans précédent, contre les juifs en particulier. Parallèlement à l’apogée du nazisme c’est donc le déchirement d’une famille que l’on croyait soudée à laquelle on assiste. Séparée de Fritz, Freya s’éprend du personnage interprété par James Stewart dont elle admire le courage et le pacifisme.

Inspiré de l’ouvrage éponyme de Phyllis Bottome publié deux ans plutôt, The Mortal Storm est un film à la fois politique et lyrique. Politique tout d’abord parce qu’il est l’un des premiers films à dénoncer de manière si ouverte et radicale le nazisme et ses conséquences, l’un des premiers à l’illustrer de manière si réelle et donc terrible (autodafés et camps de concentration). Lyrique ensuite car l’histoire d’amour entre le personnage de Freya et celui de Martin est une des plus belles et fortes jamais portée à l’écran. Et que dire de cette fin dans laquelle la liberté trouve son aboutissement dans l’amour et la mort ? Borzage est un cinéaste dont on ne criera jamais assez le talent. Tampon “Vu et très recommandé par ZDC”.

Oil up your rubber plant leaves, we’re in for a vertiginous afternoon…

Inspired by David Cairns‘ wonderful Vertigo post, I took another look at the film (a longtime favourite) last night. And today, as fate would have it, I find myself in possession of the power and the freedom to do something about it.

But what?

I’ve read so much about this movie–and referred back to it in so many discussions (often revolving around Lynch, De Palma or 1970s Amazing Spider-Man comics)–that I’m not sure where to begin my own proper blog entry on Hitchcock’s masterpiece.

I do, at least, feel comfortable describing the film in those terms. But that’s where the comfort ends. This is a polarizing movie. And it should polarize you, as a viewer–especially if you happen to be a male gazer. When I first saw it, as a youngster, it made me really unhappy. I found it bleak, incoherent and, above all, misogynistic. (Interpretations of this sort are available in great abundance on the web.) These days, after somewhere between ten and twenty subsequent viewings, I can’t really argue with my 12-year old self–Vertigo really was built with those monstrous materials.

The difference is that, as an adult, I am willing to concede (which is not the same thing as accepting–in fact, for me, it’s quite the opposite) that bleakness, incoherence and (don’t kid yourself dude) misogyny make our sad orb go ’round. Once you make that concession, it becomes possible to understand that Vertigo itself is a plunge into the swirl of fallenness that shapes (or distorts–or both) our daily lives. Like Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, Vertigo is a sick film… a spiteful film. However, unlike our troubled Russian friend, Vertigo is very attractive indeed.

I like to think of this movie as the depressive rhyme to Emerson’s famously manic intuition of the Sublime:

Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear. In the woods too, a man casts off his years, as the snake his slough, and at what period soever of life, is always a child. In the woods, is perpetual youth.

Apparently, Judy-as-Madeleine Elster doesn’t agree with ol’ Waldo. Maybe tree size matters? Those East Coast woods are a lot less intimidating…

Vertigo is retrospective… everything happens too late… and it builds the sepulcher of Patriarchy–trapping our protagonist in a terrible tomb. Yes. If I have anything even moderately new to introduce to the immense discussion about Vertigo, it’s that Kim Novak’s character is the hero of the piece.

Of course it doesn’t start out that way. For more than an hour, the film lulls us into a very comfortable affinity with the subjective experience of Jimmy’s glib jerk.

What remains to be said about Stewart? He’s probably the most important male screen star of the 20th century. An incredibly complex figure–and a one-man argument in favour of the narratological usefulness of the star system. The cinematic embodiment of kindness and decency (although he played A LOT of parts that don’t bring these values into play at all)–everyone loves him, even after they discover, to their (or, at least, to my) horror, that he was a rabid right-winger, a proud carpet-bomber and a demented Vietnam hawk… And it means something, something terrible, something very hard to put into words, that “Scottie” Ferguson rasps Judy Barton to her doom in the same injured-boy tones that Jefferson Smith had used in fighting for the lost cause of democratic freedom in 1939.

But there’s no reason to mince words here.”Scottie” is an ASSHOLE. We know this right from the start. Or, at least, we know it from the moment that we see him in action with the much-put-upon Midge. We should know it, anyway–take a look at him up there, teasing his friend with his weirdly wandering innuendo. But it’s hard to see. This is Jimmy, after all. And he even does a Philadelphia Story-style comic drink take, as Midge dashes out the door to Pop Leibel’s. He might seem a bit crusty, here and there (or drop the occasional bomb), but we feel confident (the first ten times we see the movie), that there’s a good man in there somewhere. And, obviously, Midge is just as taken in by the Stewart oeuvre as the audience is–why else would she put up with his shit? The star’s track record protects Midge from seeming like a fool–allowing us to take her seriously as a character. She sees the same genial mirage that we do.

Ferguson, meanwhile, is in the grip of another, far more palpable, delusion:

This is the look Scottie ought to have been trying to recreate, if you ask me… And the fact that I’m only half-kidding about that cuts to the heart of this film’s power… Most of us, I think, know what it’s like to become more preoccupied with an image of beauty than is good for us. Vertigo can’t work at all if you don’t become complicit in Stewart’s objectification of Kim Novak. Mea culpa.

And there’s no question that, after the gloriously intersubjective promise of 1930s screwball (in which men and women actually seem to like each other), this objectifying “love” represents a massive step backward (particularly with that lovable screwball Midge relegated to the sidelines, in her cold driver’s seat, whispering: “Well now Johnny-O. Was it a ghost? Was it fun?”)

Yup–it’s the ghost of his own desire… But there’s no fun here.

This is “Romance” Midge. This is FUCKED. Get with the program.

Among other things, Vertigo is a crash course is the historiography of movie love.

And it blossoms into full-blown critique when Judy Barton, our thirties-style “shopgirl heroine” comes into focus as the subject at the core of the narrative:

Some viewers are annoyed by the supposedly premature revelation of Judy’s identity, but these people are deeply confused. I’m not the first to point this out, of course, but I want to stress that the shift to Judy’s POV is the most breathtaking narratological redirect in the history of the cinema. Or anyway, it’s right up there with the subjective jumpcuts that keep Mulholland Dr. hopping. In the blink of an eye, through the looking glass of Judy’s memory, Vertigo goes from misogynistic thriller to feminist tragedy. After the above-pictured moment, the hard decisions are all made by Kim Novak…and this sometimes-maligned actress–whom I personally love in just about everything, but especially here–rises magnificently to the task. As she later tells Ferguson, she deliberately puts herself in harm’s way during the second half of the film.

Why does she do it?

It’s because, having magnetized him once, as a prepackaged confection, she longs to repeat the feat… making him love her “for herself.” Ferguson is an automaton during the entire second half of the film… People have interpreted the Judy section as Stewart’s fantasy… That he never actually emerges from his catatonic state, and concocts this weird story as a way of assuaging his sense of failure. There’s not a lick of sense in it. If these events are the stuff of anyone’s dreams–they’re Judy’s (and, of course, they’re nightmares). It’s far easier to make the case that Elster’s erstwhile accomplice, consumed by guilt, devised this scenario as a way of punishing herself for her role in the murder. This would account for the total absence of Midge in Judy’s section (Judy doesn’t know she exists) and would also explain the nun-sensical leap off the tower (which calls back to Madeleine’s scripted memory of “Sister Theresa” scolding the children for daring to venture into their favourite play area–a commentary upon the ways in which patriarchy forces women to police each other’s jouissance?).

Ultimately, I don’t have much interest in “what’s a dream, what’s reality?”-type analyses of deliberately oneiric films (this impatience bubbled up most famously in the Mulholland Dr. debates of yore). I’m interested in exploring subjective states–and examining the preconditions (or the possibility) of intersubjectivity. Vertigo does the first extraordinarily well–making us feel both what it’s like to desire and to be desired under the dark star of patriarchy… And it confronts us with all of the questions (re: the second) that no well-adjusted person wants to ask–because we’re afraid the answers will leave us right here, on the brink of a deeply non-Emersonian Sublime:

One star on the list that I really liked in two movies was Jimmy Stewart. I watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Capra 1939) in my Government class in high school. I also watched Vertigo (Hitchcock 1958) this summer and was amazed. So I want to learn more about Jimmy Stewart and I think doing this paper will be interesting to see his star image transform. In Mr. Smith Goes to Washington he is just a small town man, Jefferson Smith, going to a big town. He is depicted as a wholesome American ideal. Later, he served in World War II, adding further to his star image as the stereotypical American male. In Vertigo he plays John “Scottie” Ferguson who suffers from vertigo after the opening events of the film. He is hired as a private investigator and that is when things go awry. This movie is a suspenseful thrill ride that only Alfred Hithcock could provide. In the film he is depicted as a detective who gets too engrossed in the case. It’s interesting he went from the personification of the American male to a obsessive private eye.

While I haven’t seen a lot of Jimmy Stewart movies, I’d like to explore what happened in his public personal life and relate it to what happened to his image as a star. He was a star from the 30s to the 60s, so I know there has to be a lot development in there. Some of the movies I’m interested in watching are The Philedelphia Story (Cukor 1940), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Capre 1939), It’s a Wonderful Life (Capra 1946), Rear Window (Hitchcock 1954), The Man Who Knew Too Much (Hitchcock 1956), and Vertigo (Hithcock 1958). I want my main focus to be on his transformation, so I want to get some good before and after movies.

A source I found and plan to use is “Jimmy Stewart is Being Beaten: Rope and the Postwar Crisis in American Masculinity.” It’s about how Stewart embodies American masculinity and how it is often attacked from all sides by something unknown but present. This would be good to include in his transformation because this attack of American masculinity has something to do with his changing star image. His star image definitley changed drastically over time, just comparing Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Vertigo. I also found some other articles that are reviews of movies he has been in. One is entitled “The Complexities of Spectatorship: Reviewing Rear Window.” It talks about how sexuality and violence is presented in the movie and the complexities behind being a voyeur of it, which Jimmy Stewart’s character is. I think it will be really interesting to use reviews like this in observing how his star image changed from the perfect American male.

As i promised before, i show you some more pics that i scanned from my father archives.

Como prometí antes, les muestro algunas fotos que escaneé de los archivos de mi padre.

It’s seems like it was just yesterday that I was posting a sigh of relief that the U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax, and Trade Bureau (TTB) was lifting its requirement of Italian government certification for Brunello di Montalcino imported to this country. Nearly every Italian news agency and feed (ANSA, Yahoo.it, etc.) had reposted agricultural minister Luca Zaia’s press release in which he announced — with cocksure nonchalance, I may add — that the requirement had been lifted following his successful meeting in Washington with TTB bureau head John Manfreda. Even Brunello producers association director Patrizio Cencioni issued a release praising minister Zaia and thanking him for a job well done. (You can read all of the press releases here.)

But it seems that minister Zaia was a little too quick to sing his own praises.

Late yesterday afternoon, another post hit the feed as the Italians were already sleeping: the TTB issued a press release in which stated plainly and clearly that the agricultural minister had falsely represented the agreement negotiated in the minister’s meeting with Manfreda last week. Despite claims otherwise, states the document, Italian government certification is still required. And it will continue to be required, according to the document, until the Italian government presents the Siena prosecutor’s final report on the investigation (the so-called “Operation Mixed Wine” inquiry into the suspected adulteration of Brunello and other Tuscan wines).

I spoke this morning to Brunello producer Fabrizio Bindocci of Il Poggione in Sant’Angelo in Colle and he told me that he and Il Poggione’s owner Leopoldo Franceschi were left dumbstruck when they read the news of the TTB’s clarification. “Maybe Zaia met with the doorman, not the TTB administrator,” Fabrizio wondered out loud with classic Tuscan wit. (Fabrizio’s son Alessandro has posted the entire series of press releases at his blog Montalcino Report.) “We feel that certification should be required and it should continue to be required,” said Fabrizio, whose wine has been certified by an independent Norwegian risk management firm since 2003, long before the controversy began.

In his post this morning, Franco published an image of Walt Disney’s Pinocchio and asked: “Just for the sake of clarity, can somebody — in Montalcino, Rome, or Treviso — help us to understand what’s going on?” (Minister Zaia hails from Treviso.) And making reference to Zaia’s bid to become governor of the Veneto (his home region), Franco asks rhetorically, “is it so hard to understand that it’s not possible and it makes no sense to run an electoral campaign in the Veneto using the supposed great success obtained in the [minister's] campaign in Montalcino?”

@Mr. Zaia you are no James Stewart: if you need an interpreter the next time you head to Washington, feel free to give me a call!

It may not have inspired nearly as many movies as those cheerier, more wholesome, festivities that take place in December, but Hallowe’en rears its ugly, pumpkin, head in a rich mix of classic films – from family fantasies, such as ET, to such serious dramas as Kramer Vs Kramer.

It pops up in musicals, romantic comedies, thrillers and chillers. Just as there are certain movies which are perfect for getting us into a Christmassy mood, so there is a less well-documented collection of films which are ideal for conjuring up the spirit of Hallowe’en. Here’s my guide to essential Hallowe’en viewing.