This poster advertising the 1941 film version of Dr Jeckyll & Mr Hyde served as an inspiration to the look of Batman’s arch villain Two Face, who debuted that year.

The 1931 film version of Dr Jeckyll & Mr Hyde is said to have influenced the character as well, in the way Two Face would behave. Apparently Bill Finger used Frederic March’s performance as a template for the character’s actions.

I will do a review of both of these films in the next couple of weeks are see how they compare with each other.

I was stunned today to find a Red-throated Loon in close to shore as I walked the Northeast Beach. This is a rare bird for me, atleast untilt his fall, and I find her(?) very elegant and graceful. So I grabbed a bunch of shots and put them here. I love the long, slender neck, the slightly upturned beak, the expressions of curiosity as she spots me, and the sleek body, rarely seen because it’s designed for underwater work. She reminds me of a young Katherine Hepburn – hmmmm, and come to think of it, the Common Loon reminds me a bit of Spencer Tracy

(Note – there’s a button for full screen mode for this slide show which you can then exit by hitting “escape” key. )

This wasn’t the only highlight of today’s walk – another one in inclement weather where there was a constant mist out of the northeast on alight wind that raised more chop onthe bay than the ocean. In any event, as I came over the causeway I spotted a Brant  – a juvenile I believe.  I’m used to seeing these in flocks – and not very often. In fact, I can only remember seeing them here once before a few years ago.  So maybe this one’s lost, or maybe he’s just a rebel off doing his own thing, In any event, they remind me of a small version of the Canada Goose. When they mature there’s a white ring around their neck = this one has only the slightest hint of a ring.

Click image for larger version.

Click image for larger version.

And remember the Bufflehead dude from the other day – the lone male? Well, this time he had a female companion – and there were several others  along the way, but in small groups.

After walking the beach I turned inland towards the towers and couldn’t help noticing that while the landscape is pretty bleak. Here’s a view looking out at a passing ship.

Click image for larger view.

There is an awful lot of color here if you look closely. One yellow flower seems to not know winter is coming. I see it in a small bunches throughout the island. Seems to be the only thing left in bloom right now.

The bittersweet berries remain lovely.

And here are a couple of other plants that I found appealing, but I don’t have a clue what they are.

Saw quite abit of smallbird activity – but little I could identify. Maybe a Yellow Rump or three and I;m cetain of a pair of Mockingbirds.  But most were too far away and too fast forme.

On the way out I stopped on the causeway to admire some Eiders. Seems they’ve learned to avoid humans now that hunting season is here. But they’re smart. They didn’t fly – just sort of swam real fast with t heir wings. Could they be doing this on purpose? Perhaps they know they can only be shot when in the air? Nawwww . . .

075. Hide-Out (W.S. Van Dyke, 1934)
Hide-Out is a mobster movie in so much as it’s about a mobster. But instead of being a Little Caesar type story of the rise and fall of a gangster, it’s a romantic dramady. Montgomery’s Lucky really is no good. When he ends up at the Miller family farm after being shot, he intends to use the family’s kindness for as long as he can until he recovers and then return to his life of crime. But he starts to actually genuinely like the family, especially Pauline, the daughter, played by a charming Maureen O’Sullivan. At first he is after that one thing that bad boys are after when it comes to girls, but he realizes her really loves her and that makes him want to turn his life around. The movie is a really good piece of character development for Lucky, and Montgomery’s performance as both the heartless Lucky and the changed man is very good. He makes the development feel very natural. The love story, while simple, is surprisingly romantic, and there’s a an incredibly charged scene where Lucky and Pauline take refuge in an empty house during a rainstorm.

074. City Lights (Charles Chaplin, 1931)
City Lights is easily the most loved Chaplin film (though not my favorite). Chaplin resisted sound for many years, continuing to make silent films into the 1930s. This is a pure romance, about the selfless power of love.  The Tramp is willing to go through all sorts of things for the Flower Girl, in hopes of making enough  money to pay for an operation to restore her sight, even though he knows that once she can actually see him, and see that he’s not the wealthy man she thinks he is, that she might not want him anymore. It really is beautiful to see a love story where the character is so entirely selfless. There isn’t an ounce of selfishness in his actions. In addition to being touching, it’s an incredibly funny movie. Nobody could combine the drama of romance with the extreme humor the way that Chaplin did. The two blend together to create a perfect romantic comedy.

073. Libeled Lady (Jack Conway, 1936)
William Powell and Myrna Loy made a huge amount of films together. Their most notable are obviously the Thin Man movies, but Libeled Lady is easily their best non-Thin Man movie. I’m a big fan of the love-quadrangle thing in old movies, and this movie has one of the best. Powell, Loy, Spencer Tracy, and Jean Harlow make a great team, and it makes for three of the best pairings in classic romance – Loy and Powell (obviously), Tracy and Harlow, and Harlow and Powell. I think Harlow’s performance is particularly impressive because she spends a good portion of the movie acting like the last thing she wants to do is marry Powell, when in reality that was what she wanted more than anything (Powell and Harlow were an item until her death in 1937).

072. Shall We Dance (Mark Sandrich, 1937)
Shall We Dance really doesn’t get a lot of love among the Astaire/Rogers films, which is unfortunate and not entirely fair. Sure, while the dancing is good, it doesn’t really match a few of their other films, and with the exception of “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” there isn’t an amazingly memorable number. But what it lacks on the musical front it makes up for by having one of the most original stories and the pair’s film canon. No mistaken identity here. Fred and Ginger play two famous dancers who the press mistakingly think are married. It’s a good premise that leads to some fantastic comedy, and great performances from its leads. Especially Ginger, who spends much of the movie acting annoyed and put out by Fred’s obvious attractions. And while there’s no mind blowing dance accompanying it, “They Can’t Take That Away From Me” is one of the best songs Fred ever sang, and Ginger’s reaction shots to it are beautiful.

071. Midnight Mary (William A. Wellman, 1933)
Thanks to the ultra-pious good girl image she cultivated for herself in the late 1940s and 1950s, when people think of Loretta Young think almost exclusively of that ultra-pious good girl. So a lot of people are often surprised to go back in her filmography and look at her pre-code work, in which that good girl was a far away thing. This is especially true of Midnight Mary, an amazing character study where Young plays one of the most flawed heroines of the era. Mary gets dealt a shit hand early on, and her life just devolves from there, from prostitution to a dangerous relationship with a violent criminal. This film is so obviously pre-code. It seems that every time Mary makes a strong moral decision, it backfires on her completely, but whenever she does something bad things kind of work for her. In the end, Mary is her own worst enemy, thinking that she doesn’t deserve any better than the life she has. Young’s performance is incredible, and this is one of the best characters to come out of the decade.

By Katie Richardson

Hoy cada vez se olvida más este principio básico del mundo del cine. sin un buen guión y unos buenos diálogos imposible hacer una película como Dios manda. Antes lo sabían todos los que se dedicaban al cine. Hoy es muy difícil encontrar un diálogo creíble e inteligente. Lo que sí abunda es lo pretencioso o las vulgaridades descerebradas. Para eso es mejor volver al cine mudo.

R. Lardner, guionista

Una sola pincelada, sin más: “Producción, ‘La mujer del año’ (Woman of the year), de George Stevens. Atención: En blanco y negro… Katharine Hepburn y Spencer Tracy van en un taxi. Se besan. En un potente claroscuro, la acción sugiere muchísimo más que lo que muestra. El taxi ha  llegado a su destino, el taxista observa complaciente a la pareja. Es un cándido voyeur. El taxista se dirige a Tracy y le dice en tono de complicidad: “Bonita noche”. El periodista deportivo le replica: “Dígamelo a mí”.

Desgraciadamente, ahora los piratas no son héroes de película...

Piratas de Somalia…Tan lejos de los de las películas y del Pirata Garrapata, que el Duende no leyó porque cuando nació ya se le había pasado la edad de la fantasía, pero que le hacía mucha gracia tan sólo con escuchar su nombre. En el duermevela del Telediario, y a cuento del fin del secuestro del Alakrana, se imaginaba en la piel del hijo pequeño de uno de sus tripulantes.

-Qué bien que hayas vuelto, papá. Porque esos piratas no se parecen al prota de Piratas del Caribe, ¿no?…

Y el pescador le abrazaba. Los  piratas ya no son lo que eran, y los pescadores tampoco son como el capitán Akab o el entrañable portugués pelirrojo que interpretaba Spencer Tracy en Capitanes intrépidos. Pescar era una profesión de hombres duros y ahora, en determinadas aguas donde el derecho parece que mira a otro lado y se pone a silbar, es más que un riesgo. Casi una heroicidad. Así pasó que los mismos canallas  que consiguieron convertir la navegación aérea en un infierno, ahora se valen de ellos para hacer chantajismo en el mar. Aunque al final casi debamos darles las gracias porque el hijo del pescador haya vuelto a ver a su padre.

-No entiendo cómo se puede dudar de la necesidad de pagar en estos casos –decía la esposa de una de los rescatados.

Sólo unos pocos lo dudan. Quizás de lo que dudan muchos es de la utilidad del estado de derecho cuando se empeña en abrir casi siempre una vía de escape a los que se ciscan en él. Y cuanto más canallas sean, más respeto y más consideración. Cuidadín cuidadín, al criminal regañarle lo justito para que no se nos cabree más, no sea que salgamos de Guatemala para entrar en Guatepeor.

-Enésima contradicción de la vida moderna –anota Homper en su  Moleskine de perplejidades y estupefacciones- El poder es exigente, intolerante e incluso arrogante con el pillo, pero exageradamente comprensivo con gran delincuente. Y el celo del estado de derecho suele ser inversamente proporcional a la gravedad moral de la acción de su enemigo.

Pero, con todo lo que refunfuña su alter ego,  está alegre el Duende. Y eso que nunca navegó más que en las barcas del Retiro, en un chinchorro por la ría de Cubas y en los veleros de un par de amigos que le invitaron a ver las Baleares desde el mar. El resto fueron sólo singladuras y travesías de Salgari, Verne, Twain, Stevenson, Conrad, Kipling y hasta Agatha Christie, que nos mandaba de crucero por el Nilo y nos preparaba asesinatos de mentira por sólo cinco pesetas que valían sus novelas. Está contento, piensa en el chaval, en su madre, en las familias de todos los que han padecido este horroroso secuestro. Serena, resignadamente contento.

Y entretanto el mar seguirá eternamente batido, toujours recommencé, -como decía el único poema de Paul Valery que uno recuerda. Qué sabio es, siempre en movimiento para que no se registre en su superficie huella alguna de las múltiples  fechorías que en él se han perpetrado a lo largo de la historia. Qué prudente, borrar todo rastro de los piratas de ogaño.

Without Love

Pais: EU
Año: 1945
Género: Comedia
Duración: 111 min.
Dirección: Harold S. Bucquet
Guion: Philip Barry-Donald Ogden Stewart
Música: Bronislau Kaper, Ric Zeisl.
Producción: MGM

Reparto:
Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Lucille Ball, Keenan Wynn, Carl Esmond.

Descripción:
Todas las posibilidades de alojamiento están ocupadas y no hay ni una habitación libre en Washington DC que está plagado de gente. Así que Jamie Rowan toma la decisión de ayudar en estos momentos de guerra y ofrece una habitación en su casa que será ocupada por el investigador militar Pat Jamieson. Pero, hay una serie de condiciones. Primeramente ambos tienen que contraer matrimonio para guardar las apariencias hacia fuera. La segunda condición es que cada uno tenga su espacio, olvidándose así del espacio para que surja el amor. Es la tercera vez que Spencer Tracy y Katharine Hepburn aparecen juntos en pantalla. Esta vez en Sin Amor, comedia romántica plagada de risas pero sobre todo llena amor. Además contamos con la actuación de Keenan Wynn, Lucille Ball y Gloria Grahame que aportarán el ingenio y la calidez a esta obra.

Críticas:
La pareja que formaban dentro de la pantalla Spencer Tracy y Katherine Hepburn tenia tanta chispa, tanta química, que pocas veces se ha podido ver a dos personas que en pantalla estuvieran tan bien. Gracias a ello nos dejaron impecables muestras de buen cine, y en su mayoria de comedias romanticas que no se parecen a las de hoy en dia y que son simples clasicos que reflexionan sobre el universo de la pareja.

A mi me encantan sus peliculas, pero entre ellas mi favorita es ésta, por su ternura, su inocencia, y el amor sin amor, que resulta ser como un juego al que los protagonistas sin saberlo juegan.

Esta pelicula es como un caramelo, no solo por su dulzura sino porque es una pequeña belleza de cine, lo tiene todo y la volveria ver mil veces aunque desde que la vi hace unos años no he podido volver a verla y ahora irremediablemente la buscaré para disfrutarla de nuevo. Y es que es de esas peliculas que simplemente se disfrutan.

Un guion rico sobre todo en las cosas que no se dicen, pequeño universo de silencios llenos de significado, muchas veces ellos dicen más cosas que las palabras, abriendo un poco la caja de pandora de los pensamientos de los personajes.

El reparto impecable, y es que se podría decir que es casi perfecta en su genero, una pelicula ante la que no puedo decir nada malo, quizas lo unico es que actualmente pueda resultar un pelin mojigata, pero yo eso se lo perdono.

Datos técnicos:
Tamaño: 1.36 Gb
Duracion: 01:46:00
Vídeo codec: Xvid (doble pasada)
Resolución: 608 x 448
Bitrate: 1787 Kbps.Qf: 0,262
Códec Audio: Mp3 Cbr
Bitrate Castellano/Inglés: 48000Hz  96 kb/s (1 chnl)
Subtítulos: [Castellano- Inglés]

Capturas:

Película

Subs.es-en

Voto: 9 (su 10) 

Up. Su, nel cielo. Vola ancora alto, altissimo, la magica Pixar. La nuova Disney, lo studio che ormai è l’anima della Disney, scarta il suo ultimo regalo, il suo decimo gioiello. E ci si abbandona allo stupore, allo spettacolo, come bambini.

E non c’è critica che tenga. Stavolta quelli della Pixar ci raccontano la storia di un uomo anziano, Carl, che è rimasto vedovo, e sogna di raggiungere il Sud America per vedere quelle cascate che avrebbe tanto voluto visitare con la moglie quando questa era in vita. Mentre i palazzinari stanno costruendo dei grattacieli intorno alla sua casetta, e vorrebbero tanto disfarsene, Carl decide di spiccare il volo.

Letteralmente: grazie a migliaia di palloncini solleva la sua casetta, e veleggia verso Sud. Solo che con lui c’è un ospite non previsto. Il boy scout Russell, che pensa a Carl come alla sua prossima buona azione…

Up. Alza ancora il tiro, la Pixar. Perché stavolta, in un film al solito delicato e indicato per i più piccoli, parla addirittura della morte. Dopo che, con Wall-E, aveva parlato di ecologia e della morte del nostro pianeta. Fa addirittura morire un personaggio,

Ellie, la moglie di Carl, nel commovente prologo, che è un piccolo film nel film.

Non  ha paura di fare discorsi seri, la Pixar. Il cui segreto, ancor più dell’inconfutabile aspetto tecnico-visivo, sta nella fantasia con cui creano le loro storie: lo ripetono sempre i suoi artisti, da John Lasseter a Andrew Stanton, a Pete Docter, regista di Up.

Le loro storie sono originali sia quando raccontano mondi mai visti (Monsters & Co), che quando si rifanno all’immaginario di generi come i supereroi (Gli incredibili) o la fantascienza (Wall-E).

Up si rifà a un cinema ben preciso, quel cinema d’avventura degli anni Trenta e Quaranta, anni in cui non ancora tutti gli angoli del mondo erano noti, e si poteva fantasticare sulla natura selvaggia e su creature fantastiche e mai viste, e credere alla loro esistenza. Un po’ quello che accadeva con l’isola di King Kong. Up si rifà a questo genere di pellicola, liberando una seconda parte sfrenata, dopo una prima parte chiusa e controllata.

Ma anche rileggendo un genere riesce a creare qualcosa di originale, che stupisce a ogni inquadratura. Con alcune idee geniali, come lo stratagemma creato per far parlare i cani in modo che siano capiti dagli umani.

In Up non mancano i riferimenti alla storia del cinema, come le fattezze di Carl, ispirate ad attori storici come Spencer Tracy e Walter Matthau (in fondo, l’incontro tra Carl e Russell dà vita a un buddy movie, genere in cui Matthau eccelleva).

E il sogno di Carl, il suo andare da solo, o quasi, contro tutti, ha qualcosa del Don Chisciotte di Cervantes.

Ma la Pixar, come abbiamo capito da tempo, riesce a inserire tutto in un racconto fluido e naturale, senza appesantirlo, come si usa oggi nell’animazione, con tutte quelle citazioni forzate che altro non sono se ammiccamenti a un pubblico adulto.

Non ne hanno bisogno, alla Pixar. Così come non hanno bisogno di oggetti che escono dallo schermo fino ad arrivarci sul naso per farci apprezzare un film in 3D.

Come tutto quello che fanno, anche la loro via al cinema 3D è sobria, semplice, funzionale alla storia. È solo un’altra matita in più.

È un mezzo espressivo e non un fine. Forse solo un gradino sotto il capolavoro Wall-E, Up è un film maturo e intenso, adatto a tutti (non manca un messaggio sulla famiglia e sul valore del tempo) e commovente.

Un’opera che ci parla di morte in modo così delicato da farci amare terribilmente la vita.

Da vedere perché: Pixar. Basta la parola.

(Pubblicato su Effettonotte on line)

All’anagrafe risulta come Carlo Pedersoli, nato a Napoli il 31/10/’29, ha quindi da poco compiuto 80 anni, e può vantare un palmares sportivo di tutto rispetto: punta della Nazionale di nuoto e pallanuoto negli anni ‘50, con entrambe le quali partecipa alle Olimpiadi (Helsinki,’52, Melbourne, ‘56), centroboa per la squadra della Lazio vincitrice dello scudetto nel ‘56, detentore per dieci anni del record italiano dei 100 metri stile libero( 59 secondi e un decimo nel ‘50, per la prima volta si scende sotto il minuto), conquistando poi il titolo italiano anche nei 100 rana.
In quel mondo a parte che spesso è il cinema, risulta invece come Bud Spencer, nome d’arte( omaggio alla sua birra preferita e all’attore Spencer Tracy) usato a partire dal 1967, sul set di Dio perdona…io no! (Giuseppe Colizzi), dopo aver preso parte con il suo reale nome come comparsa a film come Quo vadis? o Annibale e, primo vero ruolo, a Un eroe dei nostri tempi, ‘55 di Mario Monicelli.
Nel citato Dio perdona…io no! recita accanto ad un tale Mario Girotti, alias Terence Hill, con il quale costituirà una delle coppie più famose del cinema italiano, con tanti film di successo, basati su trame magari ingenue, a volte anche ripetitive, ma di sicura presa presso il pubblico, in particolare quello più giovane, che non si stanca mai di rivedere le loro gesta, con Bud, gigante buono, trascinato suo malgrado in varie avventure dal compare Hill, con il quale ristabilisce i torti subiti dai più deboli menando sberle a più non posso, ricorrendo spesso ad un sempre più perfezionato e risolutivo pugno a martello, in uno stile da cartone animato, dove dopo ogni scazzottata ci si rialza sempre, dovesse anche cascarti un masso in testa, magari con qualche dente rotto e indolenzimenti vari…
Il sodalizio vero e proprio tra i due ha inizio con Lo chiamavano Trinità (‘70, E.B. Clucher, alias Enzo Barboni), che arriva in un momento di crisi del nostrano spaghetti-western, ormai spremuto all’inverosimile, lo trasforma in commedia, e lo fa andare avanti per un po’, anche se secondo molti fu una sorta di virus che impedì la realizzazione di western “seri”; prosegue con …Continuavano a chiamarlo Trinità (‘71, sempre Clucher regista), passando per titoli ormai cult quali …Altrimenti ci arrabbiamo! o Io sto con gli ippopotami, per arrivare un po’ stancamente a fine anni ‘80, dove complici i cambiati gusti del pubblico, ora più attento e smaliziato, copioni ormai odorosi di deja vu, ed anche l’età che avanza, non è più possibile riproporre gli stessi stilemi e Botte di Natale( ‘94, regia di Hill)ne rappresenta l’estremo e anche un po’ patetico tentativo.
Il nostro caro vecchio Bud ha comunque girato circa una trentina di pellicole come protagonista unico (la serie ad opera di Steno iniziata con Piedone lo sbirro, ‘73, poliziotto atipico e dai modi spicci), con incursioni anche nel cinema d’autore(Cantando dietro i paraventi, Ermanno Olmi, 2003)e ha preso parte a varie serie televisive: per quanto protagonista, da solo o insieme all’amico Hill, di commedie alla buona, popolari ( nel senso “alto” del termine), meriterebbe maggiore considerazione ed una certa rivalutazione dalla critica cinematografica, se non altro per le spontanee risate che ha saputo elargire insieme al collega attraversando varie generazioni, come testimoniano i ripetuti e sempre premiati dal pubblico passaggi televisivi.
Auguri Bud, sarai per sempre il nostro eterno, eroico, gigante con il sorriso da bambino e il cuore d’oro.

La Disney-Pixar ha realizzato con Up un film praticamente perfetto, dove una volta tanto gli effetti digitali vengono usati per mettere in atto una fascinazione visiva mai fine a se stessa, che va ben oltre il semplice prodigio tecnico, con un ottima sceneggiatura (Pete Docter e Bob Peterson, anche registi), ricca di sfumature psicologiche e notevoli tocchi di poesia.
Un cinegiornale in bianco e nero illustra le avventure e le fantastiche scoperte dello esploratore Muntz, a bordo del suo dirigibile: con sguardo rapito un bambino, Carl, con tanto di caschetto d’aviatore in testa, osserva estasiato, affascinato dall’intrepida figura, sognando di vivere le stesse avventure, sicuro rifugio alla sua solitudine di bimbo un po’ complessato; casualmente un giorno incontra Ellie, sua coetanea, anche lei cresciuta nel mito di Muntz, che così diviene il loro comune idolo e modello, anche quando viene screditato dalla comunità scientifica, che non crede alla sua scoperta di un uccello di 4 metri.
Il loro sogno, anche una volta sposati, è di poter girare il mondo, arrivare sino alle Cascate del Paradiso, nel Sud America, e costruirvi lì una casetta: metteranno così da parte a poco a poco i soldi necessari per realizzare tutto ciò ( Carl è un venditore di palloncini), anche se per imprevisti vari la cifra non basterà mai, sino ad arrivare alla morte di Ellie, che lascerà tutto in sospeso.
Una vita intera raccontata in 5 minuti silenti, con la sola musica a sottolinearne i vari momenti, da quelli più lieti a quelli più tristi ( la perdita di un bambino), con toni poetici degni del miglior Chaplin: ecco ora il nostro Carl, 78enne, solo e scorbutico (le fattezze son quelle di Spencer Tracy, il carattere quello di Walter Matthau), nella sua vecchia casa ormai circondata da moderni palazzi, lottare contro la speculazione edilizia e il possibile trasferimento in una casa di riposo.
Un improvviso scatto d’orgoglio, e Carl con i suoi palloncini trasforma la casa in una specie di mongolfiera e se ne vola via, non accorgendosi però che sul portico è rimasto un boy scout cicciotto e dalle fattezze asiatiche, Ronnie, che qualche giorno prima si era offerto per una buona azione nei suoi confronti: da qui in poi si scatena la più vivida fantasia, in puro stile Disney, che nell’ “irrealtà reale” di varie situazioni fa sì che i personaggi si comportino naturalmente, come se tutto fosse credibilmente realistico, dove ogni accadimento è occasione di divertimento, tra cani parlanti per via di un misterioso collare, un uccello alto 4metri che il redivivo Muntz cerca di catturare per attuare la sua rivalsa verso la comunità scientifica e sempre con la casa trascinata da Carl sino al posto desiderato, per poi capire che in fondo è solo una casa, vi è qualcosa di più importante, come il saper fare la cosa giusta, il gusto per l’avventura, la riscoperta dei valori, vedi la profonda amicizia che si instaurerà tra lui e Ronnie dopo tante avventure.
Sembra a volte di non assistere ad un film, ma di interagire con Carl, elaborando le nostre ambasce così come lui elabora il proprio dolore e la sua cupa solitudine, lasciando da parte il passato, i falsi miti, riscattandoci dando possibilità ai nostri sogni e desideri più nascosti di farsi concreti, riscoprendo entusiasmo e voglia di vivere, quale che sia la nostra età.
Per circa 104 minuti restiamo letteralmente incantati e “costretti” ad entrare in contatto con la parte più intima del nostro cuore, riscoprendo quel fanciullino di pascoliana memoria, librandoci in volo come il protagonista verso quel regno della Fantasia, dove, se fosse soltanto possibile, dovremmo forse rifugiarci più spesso per riscoprire sensazioni ormai dimenticate.

Credevo molti meno.

Ne è passato di tempo da quando l’ex nuotatore Carlo Pedersoli cercava un nome d’arte credibile: aprì una birra Bud per schiarirsi le idee e gli venne in mente di omaggiare il grande Spencer Tracy. Quella sera nacque un personaggio inimitabile, montato su talento comico secondo solo a quello di Oliver Hardy. Qui continuiamo a considerarli film di serie B, ma un giorno Quentin Tarantino confesserà di avere attinto a piene mani per i duelli multipli di Kill Bill.

Auguri, Bud: ottant’anni e non sentirli.

Pat and Mike

Pais: EU
Año: 1952
Género:Comedia romántica.
Duración: 95 min.
Dirección: George Cukor
Guion: Ruth Gordon – Garson Kanin
Música: David Raskin
Producción:  MGM

Reparto:
Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Aldo Ray, William Ching, Jim Backus, Sammy White, Chuck Connors, Charles Bronson.

Descripción:
Katharine Hepburn es una atleta y Spencer Tracy un mánager en esta comedia romántica con partidos de tenis, partidos de golf y mucha química.

Críticas:
Sin ser la mejor comedia de Hepburn/Tracy, es consistente, divertida, refrescante y deliciosa.

Datos técnicos:
Tamaño: 1,24 Gb
Duracion: 01:31:04
Vídeo codec: Xvid (doble pasada)
Resolución:608 x 448
Bitrate: 1776 Kbps.
Codec Audio: Mp3 Mono CBR 80 kbps 48 KHz Español e Inglés
Subtítulos: [Español - Inglés]

Capturas:

Película

Subs.es-en

- Up – 2009 – ♥♥♥♥♥ -

di

Pete Docter

In 5 minuti scorre la vita di Carl Fredricksen. Con una poesia raramente vista la fugacità ma intensità della vita ci viene raccontata non tralasciando ogni particolare saliente. Il tutto accompagnato da solo una musica come un film muto. Allo scadere dei 5 minuti il nostro protagonista si ritrova da bambino ad anziano vedovo affranto per la dipartita della sua compagna di vita e attaccato a quella casa che da una vita è stato centro di sogni e passioni con lei. Da qui ha inizio l’avventura realistica ma fantasiosa di Carl che per sfuggire alla speculazione edilizia che gli strapperà via la sua amata casa, trasforma quest’ ultima in un’ artigianale mongolfiera sollevata da centinaia di palloncini ad elio per raggiungere le Paradise Falls (meta per anni ambita da lui e la defunta moglie Ellie). Riesce a stupire Up se si pensa che il protagonista è un vecchietto che cammina con un artigianale deambulatore costruito  su 4 palline da tennis. In un epoca nella quale l’ anzianità sta sempre di più perdendo quel valore di saggezza che aveva un tempo e sembra essere materia solamente di ospizi e case di riposo è attraverso un classico genere per bambini e ragazzi (l’animazione) che ritrova la sua spinta vitale. Pete Docter ( già regista di Monsters e Co) firma con il suo Up uno straordinario capolavoro d’animazione che rincorre in quanto a poesia il precedente Wall-e arricchendo la tematica dell’ amore con quella del confronto generazionale anziani-bambini o argomenti scomodi come la morte, la solitudine e la malattia. Li rivitalizza ricordando agli anziani (ma non soltanto quelli fisici ma soprattutto quelli vecchi dentro) che la giovinezza si riscopre nei sogni, nell’ amore e nel coraggio di andare oltre i propri limiti. L’approccio al 3D non è quello fracassone visto recentemente in altri film che vogliono far uscire fuori dallo schermo i protagonisti del film, ma è più sobrio ed elegante e vuole portare lo spettatore dentro al film, renderlo partecipe senza abusare troppo della tecnica tridimensionale. Secondo Walt Disney (maestro dell’ animazione) per ogni risata ci sarebbe dovuta essere una lacrima. Ed è proprio così infatti che Up riesce a conquistare ogni suo spettatore, di ogni età: facendo di questa insolita alchimia una realtà. E mentre il protagonista Carl andando avanti nella sua avventura scoprirà l’ importanza dei rapporti umani e dell’ amicizia (valori da lui trascurati perchè annebbiati dal dolore dell’ amore scomparso), noi spettatori non potremmo essere compartecipi di tali emozioni che tanto sono protagoniste della vita di ogni essere umano. Non mancano i personaggi bizzarri che come ogni buon lavoro d’animazione esige devon esserci: “lo struzzo in technicolor” (come lo chiama Carl) e il divertente cane parlante Doug sono divertentissimi e riescono ad estorcere una risata anche allo spettatore più serio. Up è infine un esempio di come anche nell’ animazione si possano creare personaggi con un forte spessore psicologico, non limitandosi ad essere delle pure “macchiette d’ animazione”. Carl infatti nel suo essere burbero ma simpatico è un misto tra Walter Matthau e Spencer Tracy (come hanno ben voluto sottolineare gli autori) tuttavia non si limita a questa caratterizzazione ma viene arricchito da emozioni proprie che lo fanno un personaggio unico. Con un realismo difficile oggi da trovare anche in opere a pellicola, così tanto da farci dimenticare guardandolo che sia soltanto un cartoon. Con l’ illusione e il sogno costante che l’ entusiasmo della gioventù sia ciò che ognuno debba sempre ritrovare quotidianamente per non perdere mai neanche da “nonnetti” la voglia di vivere “volando”.

( Scorre in 5 minuti la romantica vita di Carl ed Ellie)

( Scoiattolo!!!)

So, I’m finally getting around to discussing this film, which I actually watched a couple of weeks ago. And, as expected, it did not disappoint!

Quick summary: The film revolves around two friends, “Big John” McMasters(Gable) and “Square John” Sand(Tracy), and their tumultuous adventures as dreaming and scheming wildcatters. The two oilmen continue to experience the ups and downs of the industry, when Sand’s sweetheart Elizabeth “Betsy” Bartlett(Colbert) comes into town. She becomes the ultimate test to the pair’s friendship, when she and McMasters fall for each other.

The rest of the film depicts the “make or break” reality of the industry, as the two friends struggle to realize their material desires. Their struggles are heightened when Sand finds out about McMaster’s extramarital relationship with a beautiful industry advisor Karen Vanmeer(Lamarr). In his eternal devotion to Betsy, Sand knocks some needed sense into his longtime friend and ultimately saves McMaster’s marriage.

I realize that I didn’t detail the plot too much, but I’d rather just simply state why this film was so likeable – pardon my laziness. I feel that the loyalty motif explored in the characters’ relationships with one another really defined the film. Sand and McMasters are always seeking each other out, despite their competitive natures toward each other. Sand does whatever it takes to make Betsy happy, who in turn stands by McMasters through it all. I guess you can say that this is exactly what the film tries to reason by the end: material fortune compares nothing to the true happiness of human bonds.

On a last note, I honestly bought this film to see some more Clark Gable yumminess, but instead ended up with a rejuvenated love for Spencer Tracy. My heart just broke for “Square John” throughout this film.

There’s nothing like attending a great wedding. The four F’s (food, fun, family, and friends) are a hard combination to beat. Unfortunately, no matter how much I play matchmaker among my friends, I can’t attend a wedding every weekend. So when I find myself feeling that wedding withdrawal, I turn to the next best thing:

The Mojuba Top 10 Wedding Movies List

10. Mamma Mia! (2008)

The story of a bride-to-be trying to find her real father told using hit songs by the popular ’70s group ABBA.

9. Rachel Getting Married (2008)

A young woman who has been in and out from rehab for the past 10 years returns home for the weekend for her sister’s wedding.

8. The Philadelphia Story (1940)

When a rich woman’s ex-husband and a tabloid-type reporter turn up just before her planned remarriage, she begins to learn the truth about herself.

7. Wedding Crashers (2005)

A pair of committed womanizers who sneak into weddings to take advantage of the romantic tinge in the air, find themselves at odds with one another when one falls in love.

6. The Princess Bride (1987)

A classic fairy tale, with swordplay, giants, an evil prince, and a beautiful princess.

5. Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

Comedy and drama unfold among a British group of friends over the course of – you guessed it – four weddings and a funeral.

4. My Best Friend’s Wedding (1997)

When a woman’s long-time friend says he’s engaged, she realizes she loves him herself… and sets out to get him, with only days before the wedding

3. The Wedding Singer (1998)

Robbie, the singer and Julia, the waitress are both engaged to be married but to the wrong people. Fortune intervenes to help them discover each other.

2. My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)

A young Greek woman falls in love with a non-Greek and struggles to get her family to accept him while she comes to terms with her heritage and cultural identity.

1. Father of the Bride (1991)

In this remake of the Spencer Tracy classic, the father of young soon-to-be-wed woman deals with preparations for the wedding while trying to come to terms the fact that his little girl is now a woman.

“My counsel says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions. He would give you the excuse: We were only aware of the extermination of the hundreds.” This quote is one of the most shocking and yet stunningly truthful quotes I have heard in a film. It is one of many shocking and intense words spoken throughout in the movie. Furthermore Judgment at Nuremberg is one of the most absorbing movies on this subject that can be seen. Even though most if not all of it is dialog it is very much a haunting film. This film is loosely based on the trials in Nuremberg in 1948. Right from the start the movie captures your mind and never lets it go.

The acting was collectively amazing. One of the best casts ever assembled which included Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland, Richard Widmark, Burt Lancaster as well as international stars Maximilian Schell and Marlene Dietrich. It is not just the fact that this is a star studded cast that made it so great, it was the way everyone appeared to blend in together. Maximilian Schell gave the performance of his life in this film playing the defense lawyer for Burt Lancaster who give two superb narratives that will certainly stay in your mind forever. Schell’s character use of logic is that of something which will mesmerize use you whether or not you agree or disagree with what he says. Richard Widmark playing the prosecutor gave the type of supporting performance that was necessary for Schell to shine. The way both actors fed off each other was a joy to watch. Then of course the tiny appearances of Garland and Clift were excellent and worth every second they spent on camera. I usually find myself frustrated with cameos and actors receiving recognition for them but this film used cameos to their full potential plus more. Then of course Spencer Tracy and Marlene Dietrich provided such great presence and were perfect for the lead.

The direction of Stanley Kramer was spectacular as the film intensified more and more as it wore on. It was always engrossing and never let up. The writing of Abby Mann was great, filled up with great material and narratives allowing every actor in the cast to give a superb performance. There were many memorable quotes as well. The writing carried the film forward and allowed all the potential and talent to push this film to another level.

Judgement at Nuremberg is not just another movie. It is a very thought provoking movie. More than that though it is haunting. Just thinking about the course of the events being talked about in the movie became subtly haunting in a way I really didn’t expect. What was the most compelling theme of the film though was the way it illustrated how we need to as  society separate what we feel with what has to be truly done, with what is truly right.

Recuerdo que la hija de Katharine Hepburn en ‘Adivina quién viene esta noche’ era Katharine Houghton, su sobrina en la vida real.

September 14, 1934

Hollywood Gossip

EI = Evening Independent
LDN = Ludington Daily News
PPG = Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
TM = Time Magazine

Al Jolson, Ruby Keeler and Paul Whiteman are getting together for a one-night tour this season, similar to the Whiteman-Jack Pearl-Boswell Sisters enterprise early last year.  It’ll be arranged so that Whiteman and Jolson can get back to New York each Thursday night for their radio program. –PPG: 09-14-1934

If you remember Alan Hale driving down the road singing a nonsensical song which had little rhyme or reason, “It Happened One Night,” it may amuse you to know how the song was born.  When that particular sequence was being shot, Frank Capra, the director, told Hale to sing some old song.  Hale obediently started to sing, and selected a familiar tune. . . . . Capra said, “You can’t sing that, it’s copyrighted.  Don’t sing anything we’ll have to buy.”  Whereupon Hale started again, and each time they discovered that the song he was lustily rendering was something they couldn’t use without buying the rights for its use in the picture. . . . . Finally, at his wits’ end, Capra said:  “Sing anything—just make it up as you go along—but watch my hand.  When I raise it, sing high—when I lower it, sing low.” . . . . . Thus the origin of the crazy words and tune you heard as Hale drove his rickety Ford along that country road!   –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Virginia Helene)

Babe Ruth, having announced his retirement at the end of this season because he had reached the age of 40, received a birth certificate from his sister, learned that he was not 40 but 39.  –TM: 09-17-1934

Carole Lombard, the bravest lady we know, [has been] sending back encouraging messages to her worried friends.*   –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Louella Parsons)

Claudette Colbert, Eddie Cantor, the Gene Markeys, James Cagney, Bruce Cabot and Sally Blane [have been] getting writer’s cramp from obliging the youngsters.  –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Louella Parsons)

Newsreel audiences are snickering over that British accent brought back by Douglas Fairbanks.  –EI: 09-15-1935

The busiest brain in Hollywood belongs to Eddie Cantor.  Every time I talk with him I get dizzy keeping up with him.  Most of his ideas are good, too.  Next time I’ll take my typewriter along and borrow a few.  Eddie leaves Hollywood in 10 days for a radio engagement and a trip to Europe with Lynn Farnol, to be there when “Kid Millions” opens.  And while Eddie is getting the big hand from England and keeping his place in the radio sun he will invent a few gags for “Waiting at the Church,” his next musical for Samuel Goldwyn.  Meanwhile, Arthur Sheekman and Nat Perrin are getting the idea into shape.  –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Louella Parsons)

Fay Wray spends a lot of her spare time making sketches in charcoal and weaving tapestries.  She also collects rare perfumes.  –EI: 09-15-1934

Gayle Talbot, in a dispatch from London, points out the attitude at Elstree studios toward the “personal publicity” that is desired by most of Hollywood.  The studios there, the dispatch says, “Don’t think it is anybody’s business if their high salaried leading lady is going places with the latest juvenile importation from Hollywood.  Neither is it any concern of the public how much money little Sarah Twinkletoes, late of the ribbon counter, is making.” –LDN: 09-15-1934

Greta Garbo, reputedly so fond of seclusion, whould work in the English studios.  There, perhaps, she would find that freedom from publicity she so desires in Hollywood. –LDN: 09-15-1934

Harold Lloyd is one of the best of amateur magicians. . . And Clifton Webb paints in oils almost as well as he dances.  –EI: 09-15-1934

Hollywood’s most famous pair of “acting hands” belongs to Zasu Pitts.  An almost equally noted pair are at the disposal of Lee Tracy.  And not to be over-looked in the discussion is Helen Hayes, whose “talkative hands” helped her win an academy prize for acting. –LDN: 09-15-1934

Jane Wyatt, who made her screen debut recently in “One More River”—she played Diana Wynyard’s sister—is returning to Broadway next week for a role in Harry Segall’s “Lost Horizons.”  Rowland Stebbings in producing it. –PPG: 09-14-1934

Joe Penner [was recently seen] feeding his pals (40 of them) duck!   –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Louella Parsons)

On the rocky northern coast of Corsica sat Playwright Noel Coward, sipping a drink, waiting for his chartered yacht Mairi to pick him up. Two days before a Mediterranean squall had sent him scurrying ashore to shelter. As the storm abated he saw Mairi nose in toward shallow water, buckle up on a rock, spill her crew into the sea. Yachtsman Coward started to hike. Twenty miles down the coast he walked into the village of Ile Rousse, told his plight to a skeptical hotelkeeper, who cabled London. When Coward got back to the wreck he waded in to salvage what he could, then sailed to Nice, reporting: “All of the crew were saved. I went up to my neck in bilgewater on the wreck and managed to save my passport and the manuscript of my autobiography. I lost 14 suits of clothes. However, I saved my typewriter so I don’t have to worry about making a living.”   –TM: 09-17-1934

Walter Huston and Nan Sunderland frequently dine in quickie restaurants and chop suey palaces to escape the growing horde of autograph collectors.  –EI: 09-15-1934

William Seiter, director of “The Richest Girl in the World”, is an expert billiard player and can make a 5-cushion shot!  –EI: 09-15-1934

Hollywood is circus mad.  Film celebs, believe it or not, who visited Ringlings’ here are actually following the big show to Long Beach and Pasadena.  Wally Beery, the best patron of them all and by his own admittance a former elephant trainer, should get his fill of the big tent.  Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has just bought a circus yarn, “O’Shaughnessy’s Boy,” by Mike Boylan and Harvey Gates for him and his boy friend, Jackie Cooper. . . . . It’s a natural for both of them.  Jackie plays the heir to an enormous fortune who runs away and joins up with the circus, while Wally is the elephant trainer.  First, of course, there is Beery’s “The Mighty Barnum” for Darryl Zanuck.  –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Louella Parsons)

There’s more ballyhooing these days about the child actors and actresses than there is about the grownup stars.  They declare on the RKO lot that Frankie Thomas, 13-year-old star of “Wednesday’s Child,” is second to none, and that when he is seen on the screen Shirley Temple and David Holt will meet their hottest competition.  Frankie is on the train now choo-chooing back to New York for a stage play; then he returns to make a picture for RKO.  His contract gives him permission to divide his time between New York and Hollywood so he must be good.  –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Louella Parsons)

One of the nicest things ever done by picture people was the marvelous co-operation they gave the Los Angeles Junior League in raising money for charity.  They agreed to play a pole game, and afterward arrange a barbecue under the trees near the pole field. . . . . Frank Borzage, the director; “Big Boy” Williams, Johnny Mack Brown and James Gleason made up one team, which was called the “Romancers,” while Walt and Roy Disney, Hal Roach and Raymond Griffith composed the “Funsters.” . . . . . Later Jack Warner substituted for Jimmy Gleason.  Spencer Tracy was to have played, but he was engaged in an important picture, and the Fox studio refused to let him participate in the game, as he held up production on a film not long ago due to an accident he suffered in a practice game. . . . . Eddie Cantor acted as master of ceremonies, and Jack Holt was referee.  Hundreds of tickets were sold and the day was a greater success than the Junior League had even hoped.  –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Virginia Helene)

Waiting on sets is tiresome for actors.  Even more so than the actual work they do.  It is so difficult to know just how long it is going to take to shoot a sequence, that all actors are required to be present most of the time, made up, and are sometimes not used for hours, or perhaps all day. . . . . Each time a new scene is photographed there must be rehearsals, the camera must be moved, and the lights arranged differently.  All of this takes so long that most players bring books, or knitting, or hook rugs to while away the hours.  Joan Crawford furnished her private theater with rugs she made between scenes on the set.  –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Virginia Helene)

Cemeteries are conspicuous by their absence in Hollywood.  It would almost seem that no one ever died here.  Someone said that the people who should have died long ago are still walking around, and that’s what is the matter with Hollywood!  –PPG: 09-15-1934 (Virginia Helene)

Four relatives of well-known stage people will dance in the chorus of “College Rhythm,” featuring Lanny Ross, Jack Oakie and Joe Penner.  They are Sally Rand’s brother, Harold; Russell Ash, son of Sam Ash, New York singer; Lee Middleton, daughter of Charles Middleton, Hollywood actor, and Jimmy Aye, brother of Marion, musical comedy star.  –PPG: 09-15-1934

*A Note from Vicki:  I can only assume that this bit of gossip is in reference to Carole Lombard’s recent loss of her fiance’, Russ Columbo.

Some people have asked why I don’t post some previously published work.  I couldn’t think of a real reason not to, other than the fear of seeming horribly self-indulgent.  But perhaps there’s room for some old stuff on here. I was lucky enough to have a column called “According to Mike” in the fine entertainment newspaper, “Lowcountry Weekly,” during the late 1990’s. The following column came out during the winter of 1998. I’ve kept the local references although they will mean little to most of you. Beaufort, SC was a fine place to call home for awhile.

********************************************************************

It is the middle of December and we’re still in shorts and flip-flops.  The pace is slow, the sky is clear, the snow is somewhere else.  This is why we’re here.

       We are fortunate to live in a region where the seasons cruise into each other with the grace and urgency of a Waffle House waitress.  Some places lure you with ski slopes and changing leaves: the Lowcountry specializes in the extended summer.

       With this lingering pleasant weather, you can’t help but notice all the boating activity.  From Charleston, Folly Beach, James Island, and all the rivers big and small that divide the land, everyone is out on the water.  Some are cruising, some are smuggling, some are lost—but most are fishing.

      There are a lot of big-money boats out there on the water.  Floating Winnebegos with complex trawling and rigging equipment, double Evinrude engines that could propel an oil tanker, stocked wet bars, bean-sprout pitas, air-conditioned cabins and crews with matching golf shirts and docksides. These vessels are usually tied up at the fancier marinas, freshly scrubbed in the sunshine, with faint whispers of Buffett and blenders and convivial small talk drifting out to the envious fellow-boaters and tourists who gawk along the dock.  

       Last Father’s Day, I joined my dad, grandfather and uncle on a charter-fishing trip out of Hilton Head on a similarly well-equipped boat.  It was reasonably priced and the captain was knowledgeable and friendly enough, but it felt like maritime grade school.  The captain not only drove the boat, he also caught the bait, found the spot, hooked the lines, cast the poles and offered condescending directions on how to appropriately reel in the fish that he had actually caught.  But we played along and posed with our trophy fish and enjoyed the cheesy spectacle that we had become.  We also left with three coolers of mackerel fillets, which was the whole idea anyway. 

       Though there’s nothing like fishing out on the open ocean, the intracoastal waterways encourage a different kind of fisherman.  Drive by any public boat ramp in the Lowcountry on a warm winter morning and notice the trucks parked with their empty boat trailers.  These are the people I appreciate the most.  The guys who take their boat from the front yard, stop by the Texaco for coffee and powdered doughnuts and beer, back that sucker straight into the water, and head out in search of fish. 

      Realistically, your supplies list needn’t be very long or detailed for a good day of fishing. 15’ of buoyant watercraft, some bait, a few hooks, a pole and faith that some mysterious aquatic creature will go along with the plan. No escape from the elements, whatever the elements may be. Direct cancer-causing sunshine or full downpour, you deal with it.  There’s no posh cabin to hole up in, not even a flimsy tarpaulin on rods to duck under. No pampering, no comfort, no radio? No distractions.

        There’s a casual de-evolution thing that happens when you board a small fishing vessel; you drop several levels on the civilization scale and have permission to behave like someone else. Where you jettison all the good manners you practice on a daily basis and reinvent yourself for the afternoon. The someone else you become can be gross and dirty and altogether unrefined. The new-you can mayonnaise his sandwich with the same knife that was just used to gut baitfish and was cleaned by a quick submersion in the ocean and dried off with the oil-rag.   He can eat said sandwich with his grimy barefeet propped up beside the cutting board where fish parts and blood and fecal goo bake in the sun.  He can stare at that carnage while he eats, without a stir of nausea or guilt, and flick random fish scales from his bread and take another bite. He can belch aloud while peeing off the side of the boat, and not say “excuse me” for either action. 

       It takes you back to when early men survived on Cheetohs, bologna, RC Cola and secret caches of warm bottom-shelf liquor.  You can be burly and barbaric like Spencer Tracy in The Old Man and the Sea and get medieval on mute, unassuming fish. It’s beautiful and liberating and makes for a glorious day off.

       Besides, what better way to test your survival skills as a possible technological doomsday approaches? [Note: Pre-Y2K] Next time you’re out on the water, play the Subsistence Fishing Game: no matter how ugly or small or previously unidentified the fish, if you hook it, you have to take it home and eat it.  Moreover, if you catch NO fish, you have to eat the bait.  Squid-ka-bobs and Menhaden-head Marinara will surely be a welcome change for holiday get-togethers.

        So all you people who cut work or school to fish, I applaud you.  You are unshaven and smelly and probably doing something illegal, but we love you.  You are the heart and soul of this spit of land we call home. Most of all, you provide picturesque images as we look down at you while crossing the bridge to the drudgery of our own jobs and the domestication of our own lives. We all hope something’s biting.

This is my second – last-minute! – contribution to the Robert Wise blog-athon, being hosted at the Octopus Cinema website. I’ve just re-watched this Western starring my favourite actor, James Cagney, which is the tale of a tough, driven owner of a horse ranch in Wyoming, and wanted to write down a few thoughts about it.

James Cagney with the horses

This is a lavishly-produced film, in Cinemascope and Technicolor, with beautifully colourful, wide shots of the rolling grass prairies that almost take your breath away. The dazzling scenery does become disconcerting at times in the movie, as sometimes violent and disturbing  events unfold  against a backdrop almost as lovely as the Alps in Wise’s The Sound of Music (of course, bad things are happening  inside the houses there too.) I suppose the contrast between the scenery and the events must be part of the point, but I’m not sure it always works all that well – sometimes I found myself wishing the lighting would be just a little less bright.

In the opening scene, young stranger Steve Miller (Don Dubbins) wanders into Jeremy Rodock’s valley, and almost immediately meets ranch owner Rodock (Cagney) himself, who is shot in a gunfight with horse thieves. Despite his wound, Rodock is determined to avenge himself on the thieves and insists on continuing to ride his horse until he faints in the saddle.  He then insists that Steve must cut the bullet out of  his back to save his life. There’s a  moment of dark comedy afterwards when Rodock – the one who has  just undergone the operation without anaesthetic!  -  asks a half-fainting Steve: “How do you feel?”

I find all this opening sequence compelling to watch and think Cagney is very charismatic here. However, the film becomes slightly more bitty after this, as Steve is taken on the payroll and  starts to see the two sides of his new master.

On the one hand, Rodock is a kindly boss to Steve, and he also has an apparently loving relationship with his girlfriend,  Greek ex-saloon singer  Jocasta (Irene Papas). On the other, he is fiercely jealous, suspicious and vengeful – and obsessed with tracking down horse thieves. When he finds his suspects, he doesn’t bother with things like laws and courts, but just gets his men to hang them from the nearest tree.

James Cagney and Irene Papas

Steve is soon becoming increasingly disillusioned with Rodock, as he is warned by Jocasta that he should get away from here now, before he becomes as hard-bitten and violent as all the other ranch-hands. However, he has fallen in love with Jocasta – who is unhappy with Rodock because of his jealousy and his determination to wreak  his own brand of justice. Papas gives  a fine performance in what I think was her first American role, and there is a lot of chemistry between her and Cagney and, to a lesser extent, between her and Dubbins, though he is an actor I find slightly colourless. She plays Jocasta as a spirited character, who makes it clear that she won’t just submit to whatever Rodock wants – at one key moment telling him: “Nobody can steal me. I am a person, not a horse. I can make up my own mind.”

The climax of the film comes in a powerful, nightmare-like sequence where Rodock catches up with old friends, now his enemies, who have stolen some of his mares and lamed them to stop them getting away. He decides to punish the men not by hanging them, for once, but by sadistically forcing them to march many miles barefoot, until they collapse with the pain. I noticed in the other Wise film I reviewed this week, Somebody Up There Likes Me, that the fight scenes somehow  seem to happen at a different pace from the rest of the film, with time passing more slowly – and the same is true here of the painful march, even though it probably doesn’t fill all that many minutes of the film.

Unfortunately, what comes afterwards is something of an anti-climax, as Rodock belatedly sees the error of his ways and sets about trying to make things up to people, leading up to an unlikely happy ending where he and Jocasta ride back home together. I can’t quite believe that someone so obsessed and angry could change his ways just like that –  suddenly giving away the horses he would have died to save a few minutes earlier. But Cagney plays the part so beautifully that he makes me believe it while I’m watching.

Although I enjoyed watching it, I don’t think Tribute to a Bad Man is nearly as successful a film as Somebody Up There Likes Me, which I believe was made directly afterwards.  All the same, there are a few interesting similarities between them. One is that both movies mix bits of various genres, with Somebody combining boxing, gangster and prison drama,  and Tribute imbuing a Western with the sort of psychoanalytic drama that was gaining ground in the 1950s. Both films also have strong romantic plots to add to the mix.

Another similarity is that both films were originally intended for one major star, but ended up with another in the lead. Somebody Up There Likes Me was supposed to star James Dean, with Paul Newman stepping in after his death.  Tribute to a Bad Man was intended for Spencer Tracy, but, after he either became ill or fell out with the studio – accounts differ – Cagney took on the role instead.

I find it interesting to wonder how Tracy, another of my favourite actors, would have played the part, because, on the face of it, the lead role of Rodock, the tough  owner of a horse ranch whose word is law, seems far more his sort of character than Cagney’s. Tracy plays someone very similar to this in Sea of Grass.  However, Cagney makes the character his own, pouring in aspects of his screen personality and giving Rodock the sort of nervous intensity that is so much his own key quality. Little moments like the way he sings to himself on horseback are so characteristic of Cagney that they surely must have been things he added in himself. Wise talks in the commentary to Somebody Up There Likes Me about how part of directing is standing back and giving the actors room to develop roles  – and I think he must have done that in this movie, too.

Cagney and Papas

13- O Compromisso (The Arrangement, 1969) Everyone become a salesman here. If you don’t sell anything else, you sell yourself. Ours is a society dominated by business, and the economic pressure even at the upper-middle-class level is fantastic. The epitome of this business civilization is the advertising industry. Everyone feels some degradation, some violation of self, when they spend their lives selling. (Kazan: The Master Director Discusses his Films). Não vou dizer que se você é romancista e cineasta jamais adapte o seu próprio livro, pois Kazan já o fizera muitíssimo bem com America, America, o problema em The Arrangement é adaptação às mudanças do próprio cinema. Kazan quis se adaptar a um estilo que não lhe caiu bem, chega a ser mesmo irritante o estilo de montagem, o uso da trilha sonora e a inserção de devaneios constantes, essa certamente não era a praia do Kazan, como admirador confesso da Nouvelle Vague parece que ele quis fazer algo como Pierrot Le Fou, mas as coisas ficam bem bizarras quando se força a encarar um estilo que não é o seu.
O livro tinha grande potencial para adaptação, tendo o mesmo tom de coisas que voltariam à moda nos anos 80 e 90 como Beleza Americana, Clube da Luta e Como Fazer Carreira na Publicidade. Notoriamente a semelhança fica mesmo por conta de Mad Men, quando comecei a assistir o seriado, o livro de Kazan vinha à mente constantemente, digamos que Mad Men é tudo que Kazan poderia ter feito com seu filme mas dolorosamente desperdiçou.
Vale lembrar que o livro do homem é basicamente uma autobiografia “camuflada” de seu relacionamento com a excelente atriz Barbara Loden, com quem trabalhou no cinema em Wild River e Splendor in the Grass.

14- Laços Humanos (A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, 1945)The one thing I really liked about that film was the little girl. By far the most authentic thing about the film is Peggy Ann Garner’s face. Nothing compares with it except maybe Jimmy Dunn’s face. He was terrific. (Kazan: The Master Director Discusses his Films)
Kazan e seu assistente de direção conhecido como Nicholas Ray se encontram neste filme que delinearia muito do cinema futuro de ambos, em específico o traço da desestrutura familiar, um tema que foi muito caro em suas respectivas carreiras.  É mais um desses “filmes de ator” que Kazan fez e reitero o fato de que James Dunn era absolutamente apaixonante.

15- A Luz é para Todos (Gentleman’s Agreement, 1947)No matter what I think of it today, what I remember most about Gentleman’s Agreement is that at time no one said ‘jew’. When it was being made, all the rich jews in California were against it. And the Catholic Church was against it because they don’t want the heroine to be a divorcee. There were hell of lot people who said to Zanuck, ‘We’re getting along all right. Why bring this up?’ (Elia Kazan Interview – Stuart Byron & Martin Rubin, 1971)
Esse é um dos filmes de que Kazan não gostava, porque é um produto de estúdio, com muita relevância história e nulidade autoral. Zanuck possuía um tino danado para jogar com esses filmes polêmicos e gostava de colocar a bomba na mão do Kazan porque o cineasta sempre fora um homem de coragem ao assumir seus pontos de vista e atitudes, não importando a merda que daria. Sob o ponto de vista atual Gentleman’s Agreement é bem truncado, mas se localizado no pós-guerra dá para imaginar a bomba que caiu nas casas das famílias cristãs de toda a América.

16- O que a Carne Herda (Pinky, Elia Kazan/John Ford, 1949)Some years later I said to Zanuck, “Jack Ford never had shingles, did he?” And he said, “Oh hell, no. He just wanted to get out of it; he hated Ethel Waters and she sure as hell hated him”. I also think maybe he didn’t like the whole project. (Kazan: The Master Director Discusses his Films)
Mesmo possuindo um tema pelo qual Kazan tinha fascínio e passaria o resto de sua carreira reiterando-o, ele ainda não estava tão ciente da linguagem cinematográfica, deixando o peso do filme nas mãos das duas (grandes) atrizes Ethel Waters & Barrymore. Ford começou o filme, mas saiu por falta de afinidade com o assunto tão espinhoso, Kazan era um tipo mais moldado para mexer num vespeiro com direito a romance interracial e propaganda para que se trate o negro como um igual em fins dos anos 40. Está longe de ser um dos melhores filmes do homem, mas a sua importância histórica é inegável.

17- O Último Magnata (The Last Tycoon, 1976)Não gosto desse filme. Não interessa quantas estrelas dão as caras e nem o quanto o Irving Thalberg era interessante, muito menos com quantos scottfitzgeraldeharoldpinters se escreve um roteiro, o filme é muito chato e não tenho nada a dizer, mas justamente por isso talvez seja hora de revê-lo.

18- Os Saltimbancos (Man On a Tightrope, 1953)I hated McCarthy. It was embarrassing to be on the same side as him. But I didn’t terrorize people. He did. I didn’t lie. He lied. I never said there were so many and so many, holding up a blank piece of paper, claiming it was a list of subersives in the State Department. He did. He lied. I never told a lie in my life about that stuff. It was terrible to be aligned with McCarthy. But as far as doing it for money, it’s fantastic, really, because in the first place they didn’t threaten me and in the second place they couldn’t have and in the third place I didn’t need a job in Hollywood. The blacklist did not extend to Broadway and I was at the top of my theater career. All my testifying did was lose me certain things. I knew that I’d lose Arthur Miller’s plays. I knew a lot of guys would turn against me, which they did. I’ve lived through that. In some ways the whole experience made a man out of me because it changed me from being a guy, who was everybody’s darling and always living therefore for people’s approval, to a fellow who could stand on his own. It thoughened me a lot. I’m not afraid of anybody. People say that too – that I was afraid. I never was in my life. They avoided my eye. I didn’t avoid theirs. I have some regrets about the human cost of it. One of the guys that I told on I really liked a lot… well, pretty much. I really thought it was killing him. (Kazan: The Master Director Discusses his Films)
É bem deprimente carinha fazer filme para provar alguma coisa que não é. Além de Man On a Tightrope ser ruim, parecendo desesperado e feito às pressas, o contexto em que foi feito atrapalha ainda mais, se Kazan estivesse defendo uma idéia e não a si mesmo quando o fez, meu olhar sobre o filme talvez não fosse tão decepcionado.

19- Mar Verde (The Sea of Grass, 1947)The only miserable experience I had was The Sea of Grass. I should never have made that film, or I should have quit. (Kazan: The Master Director Discusses his Films)
Geralmente não concordo quando cineastas renegam suas obras, pelo contrário, sempre defendo que os caras são demasiado auto-críticos, mas dessa vez tenho que concordar com o desprezo: ô filminho sem eira nem beira. Há um elenco sensacional, há um roteiro promissor, mas Kazan nunca foi talhado para trabalhar no Star System, tanto que o cinema dele só pegou mesmo no tranco durante os anos 50 quando aquele sistema morreu definitivamente, muito por culpa do próprio Kazan que ajudou a instaurar a revolução.

Gadget Kazan – o ator

Uma Canção para Você (Blues in the Night, Anatole Litvak, 1941)Blues in the Night é o berço de muita gente, além de Kazan como ator, há Don Siegel trabalhando na montagem e Robert Rossen lidando com o roteiro. Um daqueles filmes mais lembrados por sua trilha sonora do que por qualquer outra coisa, é um noir-musical-melodramático, se é que tal definição possa existir. Aqui o senhor Kazan tem a honra de representar um membro da banda protagonista da história, ao som de muita música do duo Harold Arlen/Johnny Mercer, a surpresa fica por conta de ser um papel importante e não apenas um cameo, além de provar que se seguisse a carreira de ator teria um bom futuro, possuía desenvoltura nata e se adequou perfeitamente ao ritmo do filme, com seus diálogos rápidos e edição acelerada para acompanhar o ritmo da música.

Dois Contra uma Cidade Inteira (City for Conquest, Anatole Litvak/Jean Negulesco, 1940)Apesar de ser um dos melhores amigos do protagonista, o papel de Kazan aqui não é tão grande quanto em Blues in the Night, mas é de razoável importância, especialmente se ele faz as vezes do gangster-mor e isso num filme com Cagney é uma grande honra. Tenho o mesmo tipo de relação com o cinema do Anatole Litvak para com o do próprio Kazan, em geral gosto bastante de alguns do trabalhos de ambos, mas nada que faça com que eu professe um WOW e é interessante o fato de Litvak ter sido esse grande introdutor de Kazan em Hollywood.
E não interessa se o filme é bom ou ruim, se o Cagney está presente o prazer é garantido. Sempre.

Pie in the Sky (Ralph Steiner, 1935)Esse é da época que o Kazan era comunista. hehehe (Parte 2)

Nota 1: No livro O Século do Cinema de Glauber Rocha tem um capítulo interessante, onde Glauber, como sempre, desce a lenha no cinema do Kazan, mas que, ao mesmo tempo, conta sobre um encontro entre os dois narrado de forma bastante admirável.

Nota 2: Pelos próximos anos Scorsese estará ocupado envolvido com projetos sobre ícones que ele muito aprecia, alternando documentários e cineobios sobre gente como Sinatra, George Harrison e Roosevelt, tio Marty também está com um documentário sobre Kazan na gaveta, a intenção é dirigí-lo, mas veremos se o projeto vai para frente.

Nota 3: Enquanto fazia este post, acho que mudei de opinião, creio que o meu favorito é Um Rosto na Multidão, talvez seja o único filme de Kazan com o qual tenho grande afinidade, seguido de Splendor in the Grass.

“I do not think about things I… do not think about”
“Do you ever think about things that you DO think about?”

You can’t beat a good courtroom drama – and they don’t get much better than  the 1960 film version of the 1955 play Inherit The Wind.

The play used a fictionalised account of the real-life 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial as an allegory to discuss and condemn the then ongoing McCarthy witch hunts.

Spencer Tracy played lawyer Henry Drummond, who is defending Bertram Cates (Dick York) a schoolteacher who has been prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, contrary to a Tennessee law that banned it from schools in favour of a literal interpretation creationism. Fredric March played bible-bashing zealot Matthew Harrison Brady, who refuses to concede any suggestion that the Bible’s account of creation is not a literal truth.

Witness box showdowns don’t come any better than Tracy’s face-off against March in the film’s defining scene.

Incidentally this video has been titled “creationism vs. evolution” which is something of a misrepresentation of the scene, in my opinion. At no time does Drummond suggest that the Bible story of creation is false – simply that the book of Genesis is open to interpretation in more than a single, strict, literal way and some of those interpretations are compatible with rational theories of evolution.

And here, from earlier in the film, is a rousing speech from Tracy on the ever-present dangers to society of ignorance and fanaticism: