Tagged by Kate Gabrielle... :-D
10 random things about me. I ended up choosing movie-related stuff.
1. I used to wear a braid in my hair like Lee Marvin's character Tully Crow from The Comancheros. Yes, my role models sucked. So did my fashion sense. But I also have always had a thing for braids.
2. The first animal I got to name after a movie/book character was a black koi. I named him Ramius. We had a koi pond, and the whole family got to pick out our koi from the big koi farm and name them. Ramius was a beautiful fish, the only black koi we had in a school of yellow, orange, red, and white. My dad was in charge of naming our cats growing up, so there were never any movie names in there. Almost every one of my animals since has been named after a movie or book character. I really loved that koi.
3. The first celebrity death I was aware of was Stephen Boyd's. It was also the first death to make me realize people weren't going to be around forever, that they could die young. It was my first look at mortality, and I've never forgotten how I felt that day when my mom told me and showed me his obituary in the newspaper.
4. I hated/feared swimming growing up. To get me to jump into a neighbor's pool one day, my parents told me I couldn't watch Journey to the Center of the Earth on TV that night. I'd have to go to my room while the rest of the family watched it. Yeah, I finally jumped. After much crying. And no, I still don't particularly like swimming, though I'm not afraid of it and can dive and swim underwater and all the rest when required.
5. The only movie I ever almost walked out of the theater on was the remake of Cape Fear. I found it completely repulsive, and it cemented my dislike for Martin Scorsese. (I do like the original.)
6. Most amazing scenes from a classic movie that have to be seen on the big screen to truly be appreciated: chariot race from Ben-Hur and the raising of the obelisk from The Ten Commandments. When my dad and I went and saw the latter in the theater, when we came out, that's all both of us could talk about, how awesome the raising the obelisk scene was, a scene we'd never really paid that much attention to on television.
7. There are some movies I won't ever watch because I love the score too much and don't want to know what's happening to the music. I don't want images not my own in my head for those scores. The Blue Max, Masada, and The Missing are among the films on this list.
8. There's only one song I can think of that I can actually quote all the lyrics to if asked, without hearing the music. That's the theme to You Only Live Twice... or so it seems. Even having listened to the Beatles and Dean Martin and Bobby Darin and my favorite '40s songs hundreds of times, I still don't know the words. Lyrics are the least important part of a song to me.
9. The movies that gave me the most nightmares was the Alien/Aliens combo, movies I love very very much, but those darned facehuggers would hunt me in my dreams. Rarely the full grown aliens, though them too occasionally, but the parasite incarnation... yeah.
10. I learned to play Chopin's Nocturne in D-flat Major and part of Shumann's Carnaval Opus 9 just because Dana Andrews "played" them in two of his movies.
I'm not good at tagging people, so, if you'd like to play, please do!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
City for Conquest (1940)
I actually watched this film last month but failed to write about it. I enjoyed it a lot, even if the dirty fighting in the final boxing match made me squirm. It's a similar film on some levels to Golden Boy, except where in Golden Boy, William Holden is both musician and pugilist, in City of Conquest, the roles are split. James Cagney goes the boxing route to support his younger brother, the ever wonderful Arthur Kennedy, in his bid to be a composer. This movie also throws in Ann Sheridan, Cagney's girl, as a dancer seeking fame and fortune with her feet. A lot of the conflict comes from her goals and what she is willing to do to get there, vs. the simpler life Cagney wants. Anthony Quinn plays a smooth-talking, but nasty dancer who takes her on as a partner.
The film has a perfect example of the best kind of escalation (in plot terms). When Ann is completely fed up with what she's been going through with Anthony Quinn as a dance partner, when she's decided to go back and marry James Cagney, when he's happier than the proverbial clam at the prospect -- then she finally gets offered everything she wanted in the dance world, but requires reneging on everything she just promised Cagney. Oh, the exquisite beauty of that moment for a plot-loving girl like me! Now that's how you up escalate the conflict and the stakes for the characters.
James Cagney is definitely growing on me. He's fabulous to watch. I particularly liked his scenes with Arthur Kennedy, when they discuss music and he asks for his favorite bit of music to be replayed. Those are the kind of scenes that will always get me, seeing that love of music portrayed onscreen. And, as I'm the elder sibling in my family (and my sister is a musician), it was really easy to relate to Cagney's character and the choices he made to help his brother's dreams come true.
Then, there's Arthur Kennedy, very young and playing a nice guy for once. It's a nice change to see him play a good guy, not hiding any deep dark secrets, and with no need to pull some devious betrayals on those who trust him. I was originally thinking he and Cagney would make unlikely brothers, but quite the contrary. They fit very well together. Kennedy does quite the convincing job with the piano, but his conducting skills... Ahem. No comment.
All in all, a good film that I'll definitely watch again.
The film has a perfect example of the best kind of escalation (in plot terms). When Ann is completely fed up with what she's been going through with Anthony Quinn as a dance partner, when she's decided to go back and marry James Cagney, when he's happier than the proverbial clam at the prospect -- then she finally gets offered everything she wanted in the dance world, but requires reneging on everything she just promised Cagney. Oh, the exquisite beauty of that moment for a plot-loving girl like me! Now that's how you up escalate the conflict and the stakes for the characters.
James Cagney is definitely growing on me. He's fabulous to watch. I particularly liked his scenes with Arthur Kennedy, when they discuss music and he asks for his favorite bit of music to be replayed. Those are the kind of scenes that will always get me, seeing that love of music portrayed onscreen. And, as I'm the elder sibling in my family (and my sister is a musician), it was really easy to relate to Cagney's character and the choices he made to help his brother's dreams come true.
Then, there's Arthur Kennedy, very young and playing a nice guy for once. It's a nice change to see him play a good guy, not hiding any deep dark secrets, and with no need to pull some devious betrayals on those who trust him. I was originally thinking he and Cagney would make unlikely brothers, but quite the contrary. They fit very well together. Kennedy does quite the convincing job with the piano, but his conducting skills... Ahem. No comment.
All in all, a good film that I'll definitely watch again.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Watching movies
There's been a lot of talk of new movies vs. old lately, and it reminded me of my youth, and what movies meant to me. The date a movie was made is really irrelevant to me. All I care about is whether it's a movie that works for me or not, whether it hits my personal buttons. More often than not, the films that do are films made before I was born, but not always. I think if I listed out my hundred top movies and their years, I'd probably find that the largest quantity of them fall squarely in the 1960s, but I could be wrong. Hm, might have to try that just for kicks. But as many old movies as I watch and fall in love with off DVD, what I miss about watching them is going to the theater.
Watching movies, but more importantly, going to the movies, has been an important part of my life from as early as I can remember. When I was a kid, there were no VCRs, no DVDs. If you wanted to see something, you caught it in the theater (either new or in a revival theater) or you watched it cropped, edited, and with commercials on static-laced television. The theater was where it was at. The big screen, the darkness, no interruptions... just magic. Even though you're sitting with family or friends, there's something inherently alone about experiencing movies on the big screen. My family was not allowed to talk (unless it was something urgent), and we rarely ate popcorn or anything because we were there to watch a movie, not eat. You sat in your seat quietly and you took it all in.
My mom used to complain bitterly every time we watched one of her favorite movies on tv because it would be cropped, and things she was used to seeing on the sides wouldn't be visible. (Oh, what a happy day it was in my family when they came out with movies in widescreen format!) And depending on the channel that showed the film, there were different pan-and-scan versions. So sometimes you would see things off to the right in a scene, sometimes off to the left. But never the whole film. My mom hated that. Passionately. You have to see it on the big screen, she'd tell us, because that was the only way to see what we were missing, to see the whole film. And in the theater there are no phones or doorbells ringing, no cats wanting in or out, no conversations, no commercials. For the length of the movie, you could be absorbed by that fictional world.
There were three favorite movies in our family growing up. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Time Machine, and Journey to the Center of the Earth. My parents loved them, and so my sister and I loved them. I love that when The Time Machine came out, both my parents, who hadn't even met yet, sat through it twice in their separate theaters and towns, because the movie was so cool they just had to see it again. That's what they passed on to us kids. Good movies are seen in the theater multiple times. Particularly because you'll never get a chance to see them that way again. Particularly back then, when movie runs were quite short. My mom would tell us the films at her local cinema changed every week. Occasionally one was held over for two weeks, but she said that was rare.
I'm fortunate in that we went to see a lot of old movies at the revival theater when I was young. Whenever any of those "big three" came around, we went. They were often double features with other movies, like Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, When Worlds Collide, etc. I might have seen Forbidden Planet on tv first, but I only remember it from that first theater experience. That ID monster on the big screen? With its red glowing outline fighting the force field? Terrifying. That thing gave me nightmares. On a small tv screen, it's nothing, but on the big screen, that thing was powerful and alive and coming to get you. It still scares me because I can close my eyes and pull up the big screen memories, and remember what those steps looked like getting crushed under its weight.
Oddly, the revival theaters never seemed to show Westerns, or I think we would have lived at the theater. They were mostly science fiction movies. Which was fine, as my dad was an astronomer, and science fiction was one of our favorite genres. But I saw Singin' in the Rain and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers for the first time on the big screen, when my dad took my sister and me. My mom stayed at home because musicals aren't her thing. My family's a bit backwards that way. My dad is the romantic sap who loves musicals, my mom wants action and violence.
And always, my mom would tell us of how cool it was to see a movie you loved over and over in the theater, but we never had that experience until Star Wars came out.
There's life pre-Star Wars, and there's life post-Star Wars, and they're not the same thing. I still remember my family watching the previews on tv, asking "what the heck is that big furry roaring creature?" But it had spaceships and action, so my dad packed us all up and said we had to go see what the hubbub was all about. We drove all the way to the Avco Cinema in Westwood, because it was one of the biggest theaters around in those days (another thing my parents taught me -- distance is no object when going to the theater to see a movie; you go to the biggest screen for something good.) I remember how we boggled at the lines going around the block. I'm amazed we even found a place to park and got in, but we did. I even remember where we parked, that day stands out so much in my memory, and I was only nine. And magic happened. There has never been an eye-popping, whole-new-worlds-just-opened-up-before-me movie experience like that for me since. For me, growing up in the '70s, with the many sci fi movies we watched on tv and at the revival theater, Star Wars was truly one of a kind.
We went back and saw it well over twenty times in the theater. We were afraid we'd never see it again, except cropped and edited on tv, so we went back not only to enjoy it, but to notice and memorize all those things and characters in the corners that were going to be unceremoniously chopped off by the tv channels. We went to imprint the movie permanently into our memories so that no matter where or when we were, we could pull it up on our own mental movie screens and remember it in its true big screen glory.
That's what going to the theaters was all about. That's what movies were all about. To take something you loved and make it yours forever. And let me tell you, seeing a movie for the twentieth time in a huge darkened theater, is a completely different viewing experience from seeing something once, or twice, or even three or four times in the theater. It's different from seeing a movie twenty times on DVD.
My family did the same thing with a few other new movies over the following years, but only Raiders of the Lost Ark got the same royal treatment as the original Star Wars movie (actually, it exceeded it). If it was a very special movie, we still went back repeatedly, but nothing was ever as special as those two, not even their sequels. Eight became our magic viewing number. If you saw a movie that many times in the theater, it was given special status.
Then VCRs came out, then DVD players... and the movie-viewing world I'd been brought up with vanished. Now, I watch my 20-month-old nephew bring us the Mary Poppins DVD and expect it to appear on TV instantly. We were watching Singin' in the Rain at their house (just on tv) and he saw the Make 'Em Laugh routine for the first time, and no sooner was it over, then he walked over, got the remote, and handed it to us so he could see the scene again. That harmless little action spawned an hourlong discussion between my sister and I on movies and viewing them and what a different world it was nowadays. Where we had to latch on and savor every second and then wait six months or a year for the movie to come back on tv beore we could see the same scene again, he can have us back it up and savor it repeatedly on the spot. Sometimes, that's a very weird concept to me.
Movies aren't one-time deals anymore that you rush to see in the theater before they vanish forever. They aren't something you scour the tv page for, because if you don't catch it when it comes around, you won't see it (okay, not entirely true, as I still do this with TCM and all those wonderful movies that aren't available on DVD, even if I don't even get TCM). And I don't find this a bad thing at all. Quite the contrary. I revel in being able to own my favorite movies and watch them whenever I want. I love Netflix and YouTube where I can watch movies unavailable any other way, even if it's in a little window in the center of my computer monitor. The venue doesn't change my love of movies, or that joy of watching a good movie for the first time and finding out what happens. I wonder what we would have done when I was a kid if we knew all those movies we were desperately afraid we'd never see again, would be sitting in a $5.00 bin in a store some day.
So, as obsessed with George Raft as I still am, as much as I can't wait to see "new" old movies on DVD, I still keep an eye out on what new modern movies are coming out, hoping one of these days, one of them will be truly worthy, and I'll get that big screen pleasure again. Because I miss that. Passionately. Even if the movies now cost $9.00 for a matinee, no one sits through the credits, and I have to wear earplugs to reduce the volume to something tolerable.
Watching movies, but more importantly, going to the movies, has been an important part of my life from as early as I can remember. When I was a kid, there were no VCRs, no DVDs. If you wanted to see something, you caught it in the theater (either new or in a revival theater) or you watched it cropped, edited, and with commercials on static-laced television. The theater was where it was at. The big screen, the darkness, no interruptions... just magic. Even though you're sitting with family or friends, there's something inherently alone about experiencing movies on the big screen. My family was not allowed to talk (unless it was something urgent), and we rarely ate popcorn or anything because we were there to watch a movie, not eat. You sat in your seat quietly and you took it all in.
My mom used to complain bitterly every time we watched one of her favorite movies on tv because it would be cropped, and things she was used to seeing on the sides wouldn't be visible. (Oh, what a happy day it was in my family when they came out with movies in widescreen format!) And depending on the channel that showed the film, there were different pan-and-scan versions. So sometimes you would see things off to the right in a scene, sometimes off to the left. But never the whole film. My mom hated that. Passionately. You have to see it on the big screen, she'd tell us, because that was the only way to see what we were missing, to see the whole film. And in the theater there are no phones or doorbells ringing, no cats wanting in or out, no conversations, no commercials. For the length of the movie, you could be absorbed by that fictional world.
There were three favorite movies in our family growing up. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Time Machine, and Journey to the Center of the Earth. My parents loved them, and so my sister and I loved them. I love that when The Time Machine came out, both my parents, who hadn't even met yet, sat through it twice in their separate theaters and towns, because the movie was so cool they just had to see it again. That's what they passed on to us kids. Good movies are seen in the theater multiple times. Particularly because you'll never get a chance to see them that way again. Particularly back then, when movie runs were quite short. My mom would tell us the films at her local cinema changed every week. Occasionally one was held over for two weeks, but she said that was rare.
I'm fortunate in that we went to see a lot of old movies at the revival theater when I was young. Whenever any of those "big three" came around, we went. They were often double features with other movies, like Forbidden Planet, This Island Earth, When Worlds Collide, etc. I might have seen Forbidden Planet on tv first, but I only remember it from that first theater experience. That ID monster on the big screen? With its red glowing outline fighting the force field? Terrifying. That thing gave me nightmares. On a small tv screen, it's nothing, but on the big screen, that thing was powerful and alive and coming to get you. It still scares me because I can close my eyes and pull up the big screen memories, and remember what those steps looked like getting crushed under its weight.
Oddly, the revival theaters never seemed to show Westerns, or I think we would have lived at the theater. They were mostly science fiction movies. Which was fine, as my dad was an astronomer, and science fiction was one of our favorite genres. But I saw Singin' in the Rain and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers for the first time on the big screen, when my dad took my sister and me. My mom stayed at home because musicals aren't her thing. My family's a bit backwards that way. My dad is the romantic sap who loves musicals, my mom wants action and violence.
And always, my mom would tell us of how cool it was to see a movie you loved over and over in the theater, but we never had that experience until Star Wars came out.
There's life pre-Star Wars, and there's life post-Star Wars, and they're not the same thing. I still remember my family watching the previews on tv, asking "what the heck is that big furry roaring creature?" But it had spaceships and action, so my dad packed us all up and said we had to go see what the hubbub was all about. We drove all the way to the Avco Cinema in Westwood, because it was one of the biggest theaters around in those days (another thing my parents taught me -- distance is no object when going to the theater to see a movie; you go to the biggest screen for something good.) I remember how we boggled at the lines going around the block. I'm amazed we even found a place to park and got in, but we did. I even remember where we parked, that day stands out so much in my memory, and I was only nine. And magic happened. There has never been an eye-popping, whole-new-worlds-just-opened-up-before-me movie experience like that for me since. For me, growing up in the '70s, with the many sci fi movies we watched on tv and at the revival theater, Star Wars was truly one of a kind.
We went back and saw it well over twenty times in the theater. We were afraid we'd never see it again, except cropped and edited on tv, so we went back not only to enjoy it, but to notice and memorize all those things and characters in the corners that were going to be unceremoniously chopped off by the tv channels. We went to imprint the movie permanently into our memories so that no matter where or when we were, we could pull it up on our own mental movie screens and remember it in its true big screen glory.
That's what going to the theaters was all about. That's what movies were all about. To take something you loved and make it yours forever. And let me tell you, seeing a movie for the twentieth time in a huge darkened theater, is a completely different viewing experience from seeing something once, or twice, or even three or four times in the theater. It's different from seeing a movie twenty times on DVD.
My family did the same thing with a few other new movies over the following years, but only Raiders of the Lost Ark got the same royal treatment as the original Star Wars movie (actually, it exceeded it). If it was a very special movie, we still went back repeatedly, but nothing was ever as special as those two, not even their sequels. Eight became our magic viewing number. If you saw a movie that many times in the theater, it was given special status.
Then VCRs came out, then DVD players... and the movie-viewing world I'd been brought up with vanished. Now, I watch my 20-month-old nephew bring us the Mary Poppins DVD and expect it to appear on TV instantly. We were watching Singin' in the Rain at their house (just on tv) and he saw the Make 'Em Laugh routine for the first time, and no sooner was it over, then he walked over, got the remote, and handed it to us so he could see the scene again. That harmless little action spawned an hourlong discussion between my sister and I on movies and viewing them and what a different world it was nowadays. Where we had to latch on and savor every second and then wait six months or a year for the movie to come back on tv beore we could see the same scene again, he can have us back it up and savor it repeatedly on the spot. Sometimes, that's a very weird concept to me.
Movies aren't one-time deals anymore that you rush to see in the theater before they vanish forever. They aren't something you scour the tv page for, because if you don't catch it when it comes around, you won't see it (okay, not entirely true, as I still do this with TCM and all those wonderful movies that aren't available on DVD, even if I don't even get TCM). And I don't find this a bad thing at all. Quite the contrary. I revel in being able to own my favorite movies and watch them whenever I want. I love Netflix and YouTube where I can watch movies unavailable any other way, even if it's in a little window in the center of my computer monitor. The venue doesn't change my love of movies, or that joy of watching a good movie for the first time and finding out what happens. I wonder what we would have done when I was a kid if we knew all those movies we were desperately afraid we'd never see again, would be sitting in a $5.00 bin in a store some day.
So, as obsessed with George Raft as I still am, as much as I can't wait to see "new" old movies on DVD, I still keep an eye out on what new modern movies are coming out, hoping one of these days, one of them will be truly worthy, and I'll get that big screen pleasure again. Because I miss that. Passionately. Even if the movies now cost $9.00 for a matinee, no one sits through the credits, and I have to wear earplugs to reduce the volume to something tolerable.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
"You said no rules, Colonel."
Hollywood Dreamland just posted a marvelous series of posts detailing his ten favorite actors, all amazing actors with great films under their belts. He had a little segment in each where he listed the first movie he saw for each actor, and his favorite movies for each of those actors. Made me really curious which was the first movie I'd seen my own favorite actors in. So, I thought I'd jog my memory and record it for myself here. I'm woefully behind in posting movie reviews and other things, so I'll ease myself back into posting this way. Favorites are always interesting to me because they're so subjective, and sometimes quite fickle. It's always intriguing to see how lists change over time.
Writing these out also made me realize that with the exception of William Holden and Dana Andrews, the movies I love my favorite actors for are all made in the 1950's on. Which then naturally led me to contemplating which 1930's and 1940's stars would be my favorites, without considering any of their films made after 1949. I'm still thinking about that, actually, and will post a list of those later.
Three Favorite Movies: The Horse Soldiers, Sunset Blvd., Alvarez Kelly
Honorable Mention: Texas
Three Favorite Movies: The Dirty Dozen, The Professionals, Paint Your Wagon
Honorable Mention: Cat Ballou
Three Favorite Movies: Fallen Angel, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Swamp Water
Honorable Mention: Best Years of Our Lives
Three Favorite Movies: The Dirty Dozen, Kiss Me Deadly, The Naked Spur
Honorable Mention: Jeopardy
Three Favorite Movies: The Hunt for Red October, Dead Calm, Jurassic Park
Honorable Mention: Reilly: Ace of Spies
Three Favorite Movies: A Life Less Ordinary, Brassed Off, Revenge of the Sith
Honorable Mention: Young Adam
Three Favorite Movies: Ride the High Country, Ride the High Country, and Ride the High Country. Really, I should drop McCrea off my favorite actors list, because despite the fact that I've been hunting down all his movies (a requirement to make my favorite actor list), really, no other movie of his has yet come close to matching his performance in Ride the High Country. In his early days, he made a ton of romantic comedy movies, and those just aren't my thing. They're fun for a one-time viewing, but they won't make a repeat viewing list for me, and favorite movies are ones you watch over and over.
Honorable Mention: Dead End - There I named something else!
Three Favorite Movies: Battlecry, We're No Angels, What Did You do in the War, Daddy?
Honorable Mention: Nightfall
Three Favorite Movies: Big Jake, Have Gun-Will Travel series, The Alamo
Honorable Mention: The Tall T
Three Favorite Movies: Combat!, Men in War, Cimarron
Honorable Mention: King Creole
Writing these out also made me realize that with the exception of William Holden and Dana Andrews, the movies I love my favorite actors for are all made in the 1950's on. Which then naturally led me to contemplating which 1930's and 1940's stars would be my favorites, without considering any of their films made after 1949. I'm still thinking about that, actually, and will post a list of those later.
- William Holden
Three Favorite Movies: The Horse Soldiers, Sunset Blvd., Alvarez Kelly
Honorable Mention: Texas
- Lee Marvin
Three Favorite Movies: The Dirty Dozen, The Professionals, Paint Your Wagon
Honorable Mention: Cat Ballou
- Dana Andrews
Three Favorite Movies: Fallen Angel, Where the Sidewalk Ends, Swamp Water
Honorable Mention: Best Years of Our Lives
- Ralph Meeker
Three Favorite Movies: The Dirty Dozen, Kiss Me Deadly, The Naked Spur
Honorable Mention: Jeopardy
- Sam Neill
Three Favorite Movies: The Hunt for Red October, Dead Calm, Jurassic Park
Honorable Mention: Reilly: Ace of Spies
- Ewan McGregor
Three Favorite Movies: A Life Less Ordinary, Brassed Off, Revenge of the Sith
Honorable Mention: Young Adam
- Joel McCrea
Three Favorite Movies: Ride the High Country, Ride the High Country, and Ride the High Country. Really, I should drop McCrea off my favorite actors list, because despite the fact that I've been hunting down all his movies (a requirement to make my favorite actor list), really, no other movie of his has yet come close to matching his performance in Ride the High Country. In his early days, he made a ton of romantic comedy movies, and those just aren't my thing. They're fun for a one-time viewing, but they won't make a repeat viewing list for me, and favorite movies are ones you watch over and over.
Honorable Mention: Dead End - There I named something else!
- Aldo Ray
Three Favorite Movies: Battlecry, We're No Angels, What Did You do in the War, Daddy?
Honorable Mention: Nightfall
- Richard Boone
Three Favorite Movies: Big Jake, Have Gun-Will Travel series, The Alamo
Honorable Mention: The Tall T
- Vic Morrow
Three Favorite Movies: Combat!, Men in War, Cimarron
Honorable Mention: King Creole
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Del Monroe (1936-2009)
I am deeply saddened by the loss of one of my childhood icons. Del Monroe, who played Seaman Kowalski on Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea passed away on Friday. Voyage was the show I spent more hours watching in my youth than any other. It (and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) started my enduring love of submarines and sent me applying to Annapolis -- except they wouldn't let women on submarines back then (they still might not) which derailed my intended career as a submarine captain (much to my dad's relief).
While I loved every character on the show, Captain Crane and Kowalski were my two original favorites, and I can't honestly say which one I liked better. One was an officer, the other a crewman, and they got to do different things on the show. Kowalski got in on plenty of adventures and action, from piloting the flying sub, to being taken over by aliens, to being nearly blinded, to simply manning his station. Kowalski was always cheerful, always enthusiastic, and always looked like he was having a blast, no matter whether he was facing spies or mad scientists or crazy alien monsters. Watching the show, he made me feel that excitement too. It was part of the joy of watching the show. Sure, there were some bad cheesy eps, but they were almost always still fun. And the good episodes just stood out even more. Or the episodes that were so outrageous they're good (I'm thinking "Deadly Dolls" here... Vincent Price, the opening puppet show, and the Nelson puppet's absolutely hilarious dialog and one-liners put this ep easily on my top ten list... yeah, I'm serious. I think my family quotes that doll's lines more often than any other character's dialog from the show, period! Back before VCRs, we used to sit beside the tv with a tape recorder and my mom would hold it up beside the tv's speaker and record our favorite parts so we could replay them when we wanted. We also recorded our entire favorite eps that way. Ahhh, the good ol' days.)
I even had a red jumpsuit and white sailor's hat I used to wear. Wore it quite a bit too. Yes, I am a dork.
Del Monroe guested on various tv shows and movies throughout his career, and I was always excited to see him whenever he appeared, but his work on Voyage is what I will always remember him for. Even though I've never met him, the world is an emptier place knowing he isn't around any longer.
While I loved every character on the show, Captain Crane and Kowalski were my two original favorites, and I can't honestly say which one I liked better. One was an officer, the other a crewman, and they got to do different things on the show. Kowalski got in on plenty of adventures and action, from piloting the flying sub, to being taken over by aliens, to being nearly blinded, to simply manning his station. Kowalski was always cheerful, always enthusiastic, and always looked like he was having a blast, no matter whether he was facing spies or mad scientists or crazy alien monsters. Watching the show, he made me feel that excitement too. It was part of the joy of watching the show. Sure, there were some bad cheesy eps, but they were almost always still fun. And the good episodes just stood out even more. Or the episodes that were so outrageous they're good (I'm thinking "Deadly Dolls" here... Vincent Price, the opening puppet show, and the Nelson puppet's absolutely hilarious dialog and one-liners put this ep easily on my top ten list... yeah, I'm serious. I think my family quotes that doll's lines more often than any other character's dialog from the show, period! Back before VCRs, we used to sit beside the tv with a tape recorder and my mom would hold it up beside the tv's speaker and record our favorite parts so we could replay them when we wanted. We also recorded our entire favorite eps that way. Ahhh, the good ol' days.)
I even had a red jumpsuit and white sailor's hat I used to wear. Wore it quite a bit too. Yes, I am a dork.
Del Monroe guested on various tv shows and movies throughout his career, and I was always excited to see him whenever he appeared, but his work on Voyage is what I will always remember him for. Even though I've never met him, the world is an emptier place knowing he isn't around any longer.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
They Came to Cordura (1959)
Talk about a waste of movie time... That's two hours I can't get back. I appreciate the themes (what is courage and and what is cowardice in wartime and how do those relate to non-wartime actions), I appreciate what they tried to do (we're all only human with the capacity for either), but it just fell flat and failed for me. Not one likeable character in the entire film. Horrible score. Awful stilted, phony dialogue that no one could pull off except Van Heflin. (He was the only saving grace in the movie, the only one who managed to seem natural in a difficult role despite lacking any help from the script.) I admit, I'm not fond of Gary Cooper, but he's much better normally than he was in this movie. It's too bad, because the cast includes quite a set of famous names. All wasted.
Oh, and on the most annoying actors of all time list? For me, Tab Hunter is right up top. He is truly, absolutely annoying and a bad actor to boot.
Funny thing is, I already knew I didn't like this movie, but I gave it a try anyway because of the cast. I'd caught the beginning once a couple years ago when I was traveling and it was on in the hotel room. Just those first ten minute bored me and I turned it off then. I should have steered clear. ("You've got to steer clear. Steer. Clear?")
Oh, and on the most annoying actors of all time list? For me, Tab Hunter is right up top. He is truly, absolutely annoying and a bad actor to boot.
Funny thing is, I already knew I didn't like this movie, but I gave it a try anyway because of the cast. I'd caught the beginning once a couple years ago when I was traveling and it was on in the hotel room. Just those first ten minute bored me and I turned it off then. I should have steered clear. ("You've got to steer clear. Steer. Clear?")
Friday, May 29, 2009
Internet Amusement
This is a case where I should have left well enough alone... See, I did this online Mash thingy yesterday after Ginger did it, and I got Van Heflin, and it was a very nice, pleasant future indeed. But as I didn't grab a screenshot, and everyone else was posting theirs on their journal, so I thought I should do it again, and this time do it fairly and put in a (yuck) person (Victor Mature, for me... yuck yuck and yuck), and yuck locations, occupations, etc., instead of putting in everything all rosy and golden.
And this time, I got who I wanted to get the first time... Georgie! Except... one should never marry a gambler. Clearly, he has lost all our money, as... well, look:
A shack? a SHACK?? I get George Raft and our abode is a shack?? In Sicily, raising sheep and six kids, no less. That's it, I'm now in charge of the bank account. But! I did get the vehicle of my choice, as I do lurve those jeeps, and I'm living in the perfect kind of country to drive it too.
And this time, I got who I wanted to get the first time... Georgie! Except... one should never marry a gambler. Clearly, he has lost all our money, as... well, look:
A shack? a SHACK?? I get George Raft and our abode is a shack?? In Sicily, raising sheep and six kids, no less. That's it, I'm now in charge of the bank account. But! I did get the vehicle of my choice, as I do lurve those jeeps, and I'm living in the perfect kind of country to drive it too.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
More "opera in movie" notes
Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoor shows up in Madame Bovary (1949). We get part of the love duet "Ah! verrano a te sull'aure" and the first bit of Act I Scene 3. It's a wee bit odd that they use the break between those two scenes to let the characters be up and about rather than a genuine break between acts, particularly as the characters end up skipping out on Act III entirely. Well, sheesh they aren't even to Act II yet (two more scenes to go!), and if they have breaks at every scene, I'm surprised they didn't just duck out after Act I! LOL!
Memorable quote:
"I said that I did like the opera... everything except the music." -- Charles Bovary
Memorable quote:
"I said that I did like the opera... everything except the music." -- Charles Bovary
Directors
Growing up, I paid little attention to the Director title card. Oh sure, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Ridley Scott, George Pal... there were some names I always knew, but on the majority of the older films I grew up watching, I couldn't have told you who directed them. (With the exception of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea because there were two versions of the movie poster on my wall so I read Richard Fleischer's name every day.) Even college film courses weren't enough to really make me start paying attention. I'd watch movies for who starred in them, but not for who made them. It wasn't until much more recently that things started clicking. And the director who got me thinking about diectors was John Frankenheimer.
I absolutely loved Ronin, and I loved Frankenheimer's commentary on the DVD. His commentary on The Train was also outstanding. I think I enjoy listening to him talk about filmmaking as much as I enjoy his films. But he was the first director whose films I actively sought out, without caring who was in them, just to revel in how he put a movie together. I did the same to some extent with Otto Preminger.
But what sent me off on this topic right now was realizing last night that three of my top ten favorite movies of all time are directed by one man. There are no other repeat directors on my list. What made me realize they were all directed by the same person was the fact that all three films are scored by Frank de Vol and, like many memorable pairings of director and composer, de Vol seems to have scored a large chunk of Robert Aldrich's movies.
The Dirty Dozen, The Flight of the Phoenix, and Kiss Me Deadly are all on my top ten film list. All scored by de Vol, all directed by Aldrich. But my love of Aldrich's films doesn't stop there. The Frisco Kid and Attack are also favorites a bit farther down the list... Emperor of the North and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? I only saw once, but I still remember both quite well, they made a serious impression on me. I'm not sure there's an Aldrich movie I don't like, though there's quite a few I haven't seen yet. I'd like to say I love Twilight's Last Gleaming, but alas, I've never seen the movie, only listened to the score (which is by Jerry Goldsmith, not de Vol, and what a score it is).
I wouldn't say there's anything necessarily recognizable about Aldrich's direction or style. Honestly, I couldn't have even told you he directed Flight of the Phoenix, a movie I've seen bajillion times, until I watched it again last night and paid attention. (I don't know if it's good or bad that 9 times out of 10 I can tell you who scored a movie, but not who directed it!) But his films are smart and well-written, with memorable characters, cleanly directed, no fuss, no frills, and with no fancy-schmancy stuff. I think perhaps it's an even higher compliment to say I don't notice his direction, that his films suck me in, don't let go, and I never get thrown out of the moment because of some distinctive camera work or unusual editing or the like. It's just seamless entertainment. I have an extremely hard time turning off his films, even though I've seen my favorites so many times I can quote the whole film back to you. His films just don't get old no matter how times I see them. They also don't feel dated. And there's nothing I want to change about them. They're perfect as they are.
So, if asked to name my favorite director, I will name Robert Aldrich first and John Frankenheimer second. William Wyler, Billy Wilder, Richard Fleisher, and Jacques Tourneur would follow close behind.
(And how come there aren't more de Vol scores out on CD??)
I absolutely loved Ronin, and I loved Frankenheimer's commentary on the DVD. His commentary on The Train was also outstanding. I think I enjoy listening to him talk about filmmaking as much as I enjoy his films. But he was the first director whose films I actively sought out, without caring who was in them, just to revel in how he put a movie together. I did the same to some extent with Otto Preminger.
But what sent me off on this topic right now was realizing last night that three of my top ten favorite movies of all time are directed by one man. There are no other repeat directors on my list. What made me realize they were all directed by the same person was the fact that all three films are scored by Frank de Vol and, like many memorable pairings of director and composer, de Vol seems to have scored a large chunk of Robert Aldrich's movies.
The Dirty Dozen, The Flight of the Phoenix, and Kiss Me Deadly are all on my top ten film list. All scored by de Vol, all directed by Aldrich. But my love of Aldrich's films doesn't stop there. The Frisco Kid and Attack are also favorites a bit farther down the list... Emperor of the North and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? I only saw once, but I still remember both quite well, they made a serious impression on me. I'm not sure there's an Aldrich movie I don't like, though there's quite a few I haven't seen yet. I'd like to say I love Twilight's Last Gleaming, but alas, I've never seen the movie, only listened to the score (which is by Jerry Goldsmith, not de Vol, and what a score it is).
I wouldn't say there's anything necessarily recognizable about Aldrich's direction or style. Honestly, I couldn't have even told you he directed Flight of the Phoenix, a movie I've seen bajillion times, until I watched it again last night and paid attention. (I don't know if it's good or bad that 9 times out of 10 I can tell you who scored a movie, but not who directed it!) But his films are smart and well-written, with memorable characters, cleanly directed, no fuss, no frills, and with no fancy-schmancy stuff. I think perhaps it's an even higher compliment to say I don't notice his direction, that his films suck me in, don't let go, and I never get thrown out of the moment because of some distinctive camera work or unusual editing or the like. It's just seamless entertainment. I have an extremely hard time turning off his films, even though I've seen my favorites so many times I can quote the whole film back to you. His films just don't get old no matter how times I see them. They also don't feel dated. And there's nothing I want to change about them. They're perfect as they are.
So, if asked to name my favorite director, I will name Robert Aldrich first and John Frankenheimer second. William Wyler, Billy Wilder, Richard Fleisher, and Jacques Tourneur would follow close behind.
(And how come there aren't more de Vol scores out on CD??)
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
"I see a man in your life." -- "What, only one?"
Another actress first for me... Mae West! I've seen clips of her all my life, but never watched a complete film. She's so instantly recognizable, so cariactured she's almost a cartoon figure, and yet there's a whole lot more to her in a full movie. She's pretty, fun and saucy, smart, and actually rather stand-offish with her men. More flirt and talk than action. And despite the patented way of talking, she's unexpectedly genuine. I liked her a lot!
I watched two films, Night After Night (1932) and I'm No Angel (1933), off disc 1 of the "Mae West: The Glamour Collection" dvds. I netflixed the disc for Night After Night, which is a George Raft movie, and was actually going to skip the second film. Mostly because Cary Grant is in it, and while I like older Cary Grant, he just bugs me when he's really young. So, I put it on only to see how it started and then saw the following credit:
Well, then I had to leave it on. Story, screenplay, and dialogue by Mae West? That I wanted to see! I'm not sure how many "Suggestions" there were from Lowell Brentano, but it was a quite amusing film, with a witty script, full of snappy one-liners and trouble and love. It suited her perfectly and I'd like to think most of it was hers. I particularly like her character's knick knack shelf, where she keeps pictures of her various suitors next to animal figurines that match their personality: skunks, snakes, etc. Hee. The courtroom scene is unorthodox but note perfect for Mae West and a highlight of the film.
Night After Night was also amusing, but not as good, mostly because I really disliked the Park Avenue broad slumming around George's speakeasy, looking for a "pirate." Of course, he ends up falling for her. Gah! No no no. She needed to go. She was annoying and full of all the wrong kind of airs. George was way too smart and interesting and funny to fall for a dumb dame like her. But the best parts of the film had nothing to do with her, cuz the best parts of the film belong to Alison Skipworth. She played Miss Jellyman, a matronly school teacher George hires to teach him how to be an educated gentleman. Their scenes are hilarious, and even better... her scenes with Mae West. Boy, those two together are priceless. Alison Skipworth definitely steals the movie. I love her! According to IMDb, she was 69 when she made this movie, but I would have guessed her younger.
(Mae West in I'm No Angel -- love her smile!)
I watched two films, Night After Night (1932) and I'm No Angel (1933), off disc 1 of the "Mae West: The Glamour Collection" dvds. I netflixed the disc for Night After Night, which is a George Raft movie, and was actually going to skip the second film. Mostly because Cary Grant is in it, and while I like older Cary Grant, he just bugs me when he's really young. So, I put it on only to see how it started and then saw the following credit:
Well, then I had to leave it on. Story, screenplay, and dialogue by Mae West? That I wanted to see! I'm not sure how many "Suggestions" there were from Lowell Brentano, but it was a quite amusing film, with a witty script, full of snappy one-liners and trouble and love. It suited her perfectly and I'd like to think most of it was hers. I particularly like her character's knick knack shelf, where she keeps pictures of her various suitors next to animal figurines that match their personality: skunks, snakes, etc. Hee. The courtroom scene is unorthodox but note perfect for Mae West and a highlight of the film.
Night After Night was also amusing, but not as good, mostly because I really disliked the Park Avenue broad slumming around George's speakeasy, looking for a "pirate." Of course, he ends up falling for her. Gah! No no no. She needed to go. She was annoying and full of all the wrong kind of airs. George was way too smart and interesting and funny to fall for a dumb dame like her. But the best parts of the film had nothing to do with her, cuz the best parts of the film belong to Alison Skipworth. She played Miss Jellyman, a matronly school teacher George hires to teach him how to be an educated gentleman. Their scenes are hilarious, and even better... her scenes with Mae West. Boy, those two together are priceless. Alison Skipworth definitely steals the movie. I love her! According to IMDb, she was 69 when she made this movie, but I would have guessed her younger.
(Mae West in I'm No Angel -- love her smile!)Saturday, May 16, 2009
"It's only a movie!"
I'm going to revisit the new Star Trek film one more time, because I'm catching a lot of flak for criticizing it. I don't mind that, except that the flak consists primarily of the following platitudes:
"It's only a movie!"
"It's only Star Trek, what do you expect?"
And various similar comments aimed at getting me to "lighten up." Those kind of comments really push my buttons, for so many reasons, but primarily: 1) the speaker is making excuses for the filmmakers' bad storytelling (and encouraging more of it), 2) they're implying I shouldn't expect a good story in a movie, and 3) they're trying to make me excuse/accept bad storytelling.
No, I will do nothing of the sort. "It's only a movie." "It's only a book." "It's only fiction." "It's just science fiction" or "It's just fantasy." What, fiction in any media form isn't expected to be good? Why not? Entertainment isn't supposed to be good? Why not? If it's to be consumed by the masses, the standards automatically lower? WHY??? That's ridiculous! Of course it can be good. Blockbuster movies can be smart, entertaining, funny, and still rake in the big bucks for the studio. And smart, entertaining, funny blockbusters shouldn't be the exception, they should be the rule every summer. Because there's really no excuse for bad storytelling. There really isn't. Telling a good exciting story is not that hard. Except, for some reason beyond my comprehension, it seems to be too much to ask of Hollywood.
The new Star Trek film fails badly for two reasons: poor plot and poor world building. I skimmed the surface of the myriad plot problems in the last post. There's a lot more (all of it fixable too, which is what bugs me the most). But there's world building problems too. There's the big stuff (ie: the emasculation of Star Fleet, a mining ship boasting better offensive armament than warships) on which the plot hinges but that blows suspension of disbelief (again, all fixable). And there's little stuff that's almost more annoying. Take that scene where Chekov is telling the computer to do something and it can't understand his Russian accent. My, isn't that cute and funny? Let's all laugh now and watch him try to get it right! What I see during that scene: the Enterprise (or other Star Fleet vessel) being blown out of existence in some future battle when Chekov (or one of any number of other alien Federation races who might be serving onboard) gets flustered and can't pronounce their Vees or whatever letters/numbers/commands in proper English fashion and the computer fails to understand the order in time. No culture with that many aliens/languages would rely on something that arcane. That's poor world building and lazy writing.
But it's a ten-second throwaway scene, so what? So what is that they could have accomplished the same "look at Chekov's cute widdle accent" in any number of other scenarios that wouldn't compromise the believability of their world. The audience still laughs (so they've achieved their apparent goal), but without some of us thinking, gee, what happens when that command is a little more urgent? That's what writer's do. They use their skills to weave plot and character and world together as seamlessly as possible, in ways that do not dump their viewers out of the story every five minutes. And that's what these writers failed to do.
The thing is, you produce an intelligent script? The average viewer who doesn't give a damn about anything other than the cool action factor? They're still wildly entertained. They're still going to love the movie, probably love it even more because an intelligent script usually increases the cool factor. And the rest of us with brains, who aren't sheep, who refuse to love something simply because we're supposed to, or because, awww, it's Star Trek and isn't it fun to revisit that universe? We love it too. Win, win.
So, to clarify. What I hate about this film is that when handed one of the coolest universes to play in, when given great characters, a big budget, and time to do it right... those involved squandered the opportunity. That is what I truly deplore, not the film itself. That they could have given the world two hours of fabulous entertainment, and we're stuck with two hours of crap instead. It may be fun, it may still be entertaining if you check your brain at the door. But it's still bad storytelling exemplified.
And the alternate history thing? It disappoints me because they could have "rebooted" the series, still stayed within the original history, and still grabbed new viewers. Would it be harder to write? Sure. Could it be done? Of course. Look at Back to the Future II. They fit a completely different storyline nearly flawlessly inside an extremely tight existing history, and it's brilliant and glorious and it makes watching the first movie even more exciting. But the other thing is, if you're going to go with an alternate history, goddamn it all, use it! Holy smokes, do you know how exciting I find exploring an alternate history? It's why Mirror Mirror is such a good episode in the original series. The things you can do, the places you could go, the expected events/outcomes you could rewrite in eye-popping new ways. I aim this more towards the next movie, less towards this one. Because there will be a next one, and it could be the best movie of all. They got the setup out of the way in this movie. Now, go to town in the next one. But hire an intelligent writer first, please.
[ETA: I should mention that I have also now seen this movie twice. I went a second time because just about everybody I know loves this film, and I wanted to see if the problems I have with it wouldn't jump out at me on the second viewing. I wanted to see if I could join the mindless masses, stop thinking, and just enjoy it for what it is. I succeeded to a certain extent. However, I also noticed more problems I'd overlooked the first time. So, I liked it better and worse than I had the first time. Will I go see it again in the theater? No. Will I buy it on DVD? Hell no. But will I object to watching it down the line with family or friends who want to see it on DVD? No. ]
"It's only a movie!"
"It's only Star Trek, what do you expect?"
And various similar comments aimed at getting me to "lighten up." Those kind of comments really push my buttons, for so many reasons, but primarily: 1) the speaker is making excuses for the filmmakers' bad storytelling (and encouraging more of it), 2) they're implying I shouldn't expect a good story in a movie, and 3) they're trying to make me excuse/accept bad storytelling.
No, I will do nothing of the sort. "It's only a movie." "It's only a book." "It's only fiction." "It's just science fiction" or "It's just fantasy." What, fiction in any media form isn't expected to be good? Why not? Entertainment isn't supposed to be good? Why not? If it's to be consumed by the masses, the standards automatically lower? WHY??? That's ridiculous! Of course it can be good. Blockbuster movies can be smart, entertaining, funny, and still rake in the big bucks for the studio. And smart, entertaining, funny blockbusters shouldn't be the exception, they should be the rule every summer. Because there's really no excuse for bad storytelling. There really isn't. Telling a good exciting story is not that hard. Except, for some reason beyond my comprehension, it seems to be too much to ask of Hollywood.
The new Star Trek film fails badly for two reasons: poor plot and poor world building. I skimmed the surface of the myriad plot problems in the last post. There's a lot more (all of it fixable too, which is what bugs me the most). But there's world building problems too. There's the big stuff (ie: the emasculation of Star Fleet, a mining ship boasting better offensive armament than warships) on which the plot hinges but that blows suspension of disbelief (again, all fixable). And there's little stuff that's almost more annoying. Take that scene where Chekov is telling the computer to do something and it can't understand his Russian accent. My, isn't that cute and funny? Let's all laugh now and watch him try to get it right! What I see during that scene: the Enterprise (or other Star Fleet vessel) being blown out of existence in some future battle when Chekov (or one of any number of other alien Federation races who might be serving onboard) gets flustered and can't pronounce their Vees or whatever letters/numbers/commands in proper English fashion and the computer fails to understand the order in time. No culture with that many aliens/languages would rely on something that arcane. That's poor world building and lazy writing.
But it's a ten-second throwaway scene, so what? So what is that they could have accomplished the same "look at Chekov's cute widdle accent" in any number of other scenarios that wouldn't compromise the believability of their world. The audience still laughs (so they've achieved their apparent goal), but without some of us thinking, gee, what happens when that command is a little more urgent? That's what writer's do. They use their skills to weave plot and character and world together as seamlessly as possible, in ways that do not dump their viewers out of the story every five minutes. And that's what these writers failed to do.
The thing is, you produce an intelligent script? The average viewer who doesn't give a damn about anything other than the cool action factor? They're still wildly entertained. They're still going to love the movie, probably love it even more because an intelligent script usually increases the cool factor. And the rest of us with brains, who aren't sheep, who refuse to love something simply because we're supposed to, or because, awww, it's Star Trek and isn't it fun to revisit that universe? We love it too. Win, win.
So, to clarify. What I hate about this film is that when handed one of the coolest universes to play in, when given great characters, a big budget, and time to do it right... those involved squandered the opportunity. That is what I truly deplore, not the film itself. That they could have given the world two hours of fabulous entertainment, and we're stuck with two hours of crap instead. It may be fun, it may still be entertaining if you check your brain at the door. But it's still bad storytelling exemplified.
And the alternate history thing? It disappoints me because they could have "rebooted" the series, still stayed within the original history, and still grabbed new viewers. Would it be harder to write? Sure. Could it be done? Of course. Look at Back to the Future II. They fit a completely different storyline nearly flawlessly inside an extremely tight existing history, and it's brilliant and glorious and it makes watching the first movie even more exciting. But the other thing is, if you're going to go with an alternate history, goddamn it all, use it! Holy smokes, do you know how exciting I find exploring an alternate history? It's why Mirror Mirror is such a good episode in the original series. The things you can do, the places you could go, the expected events/outcomes you could rewrite in eye-popping new ways. I aim this more towards the next movie, less towards this one. Because there will be a next one, and it could be the best movie of all. They got the setup out of the way in this movie. Now, go to town in the next one. But hire an intelligent writer first, please.
[ETA: I should mention that I have also now seen this movie twice. I went a second time because just about everybody I know loves this film, and I wanted to see if the problems I have with it wouldn't jump out at me on the second viewing. I wanted to see if I could join the mindless masses, stop thinking, and just enjoy it for what it is. I succeeded to a certain extent. However, I also noticed more problems I'd overlooked the first time. So, I liked it better and worse than I had the first time. Will I go see it again in the theater? No. Will I buy it on DVD? Hell no. But will I object to watching it down the line with family or friends who want to see it on DVD? No. ]
Awards and Crazy Eights
I've been neglectful in mentioning that Kate Gabrielle has awarded me the Friendly Blogger Award. I am surprised and pleased! Check out Kate's many blogs (and etsy shops) for some of the coolest artwork on the web! This award is supposed to be passed on in turn, but as most of the people I would choose to pass this along to have already received this, I'll just say thanks to Kate again.Now, while we're on memes, I've also been tagged for the Crazy Eights meme by Ginger at Asleep in New York. It has a few extra "Eights" she threw in because weirdly, there weren't eight categories and there should be.
Eight Things I look Forward To:
1. Visiting with a bunch of crazy friends this summer
2. Watching movies starring my favorite actors that I haven't seen yet
3. Watching my nephew grow up
4. Seeing my novels on the shelf at the bookstore
5. Standing on the beaches of Normandy and standing on the rooftop of the Castel Sant'Angelo
6. Visits with my parents
7. Releases of previously unreleased Goldsmith soundtracks
8. The day they stop jerking the cameras around and doing lickety-split editing in current films
Eight Things I Did Yesterday:
1. Watched the end of City of Conquest and some of the extras
2. Finally (I think) got a Thomas the Train song out of my head -- it's been stuck there for days
3. Had my faith renewed in the police
4. worked
5. fretted over the stray cat I've been taking care of, who hasn't shown up in four days now. :-(
6. spent too much time online instead of writing
7. Admired Chris Hemsworth
8. and most importantly -- laughed and was happy
Eight Things I Wish I Could Do:
1. Go back in time
2. Become a Hollywood producer so I could rectify the problem of crappy screenplays getting filmed.
3. get my dog to let me brush him when he's shedding
4. remodel my bathroom properly
5. have enough money to quit the day job and be able to write without financial worries
6. Run my own opera house
7. Sing opera
8. Never have to eat again
Eight TV shows I Watch:
1. Combat!
2. Have Gun-Will Travel
3. Route 66
4. The Big Valley
5. Star Trek
6. Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea
7. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
8. Highlander
Eight Movies I Love More than Any Other
1. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)
2. The Dirty Dozen
3. Big Jake
4. The Empire Strikes Back
5. Raiders of the Lost Ark
6. The Flight of the Phoenix (1965)
7. The Wind and the Lion
8. Kiss Me Deadly
Eight Things I'm Gonna Do Today:
1. Mow the lawn
2. blog
3. babysit
4. fight this migraine
5. listen to Star Trek: the Motion Picture score again
6. eat
7. vacuum/dust/clean/do stupid household chores
8. continue editing a story
Eight Things I Promise Never To Do On My Blog Again:
1. Badmouth Cary Grant
2. Make no promises
3. er... I'm not getting any farther on this category...
Eight People to Tag:
If you wanna play, go for it.