Cinema Styles

Favorite Moments: Forbidden Planet plus a Music Video

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 04:00:00 +0000

The only thing missing from this clip is a cartoon timpani at the end or a "boing" sound. Still, I appreciate the filmmakers taking the time to give us a glimpse into Robby's "Me" Time.

But don't go away yet, there's more! I put together a music video of Forbidden Planet using the music of J Ralph. On my old YouTube page I got a lot of the old "copyright infringement" rigmarole so I decided with my new Cinema Styles YouTube page I was going to start contacting the artists directly and ask if they had a problem with it. Mr. Ralph, composer of the score for Lucky Number Slevin, not only had no problem but said the video "looks cool." So here it is, Forbidden Planet: The Video. Turn it up or put on headphones to fully appreciate the mean-ass guitar at the 1:15 mark. And then when the monster appears... well... is there a fifties sci-fi movie with a cooler monster? Not in my book. The video goes through the whole movie from beginning to end, set to the music The Desert Suit Conspiracy by J. Ralph. Enjoy.

There's Only You and Me and We Just Disagree

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:05:00 +0000

A candid shot from the set of Manpower (1941) as Edward G. Robinson tries to tear George Raft a new one. According to accounts from the set the two absolutely hated each other and during this rehearsal in which Raft had been a little too forceful with Robinson in a scene where he spins him around, Robinson went nuts and started throwing punches at Raft until members of the crew successfully pulled him off. Of course, I wasn't there so I can't say who was right and who was wrong but I do know this: Robinson was well liked by most actors in Hollywood where you can find stories on him. The same cannot be said for Raft. I've got a lot of old movie books and I've read a few more and the words "Raft" and "problem" often end up together on the same page.

Raft had a fine career nonetheless but when I hear stories of how he turned down parts in High Sierra, The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca and if only he'd taken those roles he would have been a legendary star and Humphrey Bogart (who, incidentally, Raft also couldn't stand - he couldn't stand a lot of people it turns out) would never have become one I just don't buy it. Sometimes actors careers don't take off because they make mediocre movies or have one flop after another or just don't exude the necessary charisma. And sometimes, people just stop working with them. I'm not saying Raft was a total jerk, but from the accounts of fellow actors, he wasn't a pleasure to work with.

By contrast take Humphrey Bogart. Watching a documentary on him years ago there was a part where Jose Ferrer was talking about Stanley Kramer, the youngish producer (41) of The Caine Mutiny. Kramer's main job it turned out, much to his chagrin, was making sure Bogart stayed sober enough and healthy enough to make each day's shoot. Ferrer said one night while they were out drinking Bogart started going off on Kramer, asking why this annoying man was always around making a nuisance of himself. Kramer got irritated and said, "I'm here to make sure egotistical, prematurely aging actors do their job!" Bogart laughed like hell and said, "Alright, alright I'll go to bed." And he did. Ferrer said Bogart loved Kramer after that. With Raft, he would've been added to the "enemies" list. Que sera, sera.

Got Hitchcock?

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:45:00 +0000

Since I just recently scolded Judy from Vertigo on these pages and have a banner up based on Strangers on a Train, I thought it might be a good time to do a little online promotion for a recent favorite stop of mine, Alfred Hitchcock Wiki, where I got the images for this post.

It's a fairly stunning resource for Hitchcock and his films if only for the graphics. There is a collection of on and off set photos that could fill Charles Foster Kane's warehouse and a collection of screengrabs from his films (over 50,000!!!) clearly compiled by an extremely patient person.

But it's not just the graphics. They have almost as many articles written on Hitch and his films as they do pics, from Film Quarterly to The New York Times, broken down by film, subject matter and dates. Really, if you haven't stopped by yet give it a look. And if you want a banner from a Hitchcock movie you've got over 50,000 to choose from.

I'm Afraid I'm Disappointed in You Judy...

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:20:00 +0000

... or Madeline, or whatever your name is. Sure, you were a very apt pupil, no one's questioning that. But Judy, oh Judy, you kept a souvenir from a killing. You shouldn't have been that sentimental. Pretty dumb move Judy. I'm sorry but I'm very disappointed. Very. Goodbye Judy.

Friday's a funeral and Saturday's a Bride

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:30:00 +0000

I often find myself looking up old friends, acquaintances, college chums and the like on the internet. Who doesn't? Having majored in theatre in college I have more than a few old friends and acquaintances listed on IMDB or IBDB. This week I decided to look up one of those chums on a whim. I was thinking about my 21st birthday (not sure why) and he came to mind (more on that in a moment). I had a nagging feeling he was no longer with us due to health problems he had when I knew him way back when and I was right. Charlie Murphy died September 9, 2006 at the far too young age of 65.

I met Charlie at the Catholic University of America where he found himself in the theatre department for a year or so while I was there getting my undergraduate degree. I was never sure if he was taking classes, auditing or just hanging out for the hell of it and I didn't really care. He was so damned entertaining to be around, so loud, so funny, so full of stories. He was old enough to be my father but there was no "wise old mentor" feel about him. He could never be that starchy. He smoked and drank like tomorrow there was going to be a prohibition against tobacco and alcohol and all that legally remained must be finished today. Before I met him he worked in television throughout the seventies appearing in one sitcom and drama after another. I still remember when I asked him what shows he'd been on and he gave me the rundown. One of them was Barney Miller and I told him I loved that show. When he told me he played the guy who turned in the found money and was checking back each day to see when he could claim it I shouted, "I know that episode! That was you?" Sure enough, I caught that very episode in syndication a couple of years later and, now recognizable to me, there was Charlie acting up a storm.

He might have gone on to bigger parts as his appearances were increasing but in 1982 he was hit by a drunk driver while crossing Sunset Boulevard and was forever after neurologically impaired. That is to say his memory was affected more than anything else. He had trouble remembering names and faces and this, coupled with difficulty in memorizing dialogue, was a nightmare for an actor. Nevertheless, with great difficulty and discreet onstage assistance he managed to memorize lines and was cast many a time in productions on campus. He didn't have the look or feel that Hollywood goes for in leads or even major supporting roles but the theatre is more open to eccentricity and Charlie fit in perfectly with his gravelly but booming voice and his hearty laugh.

A laugh very much in attendance on the night of my 21st birthday. The legal age for drinking the hard stuff changed from 18 to 21 long before I reached 18 so I had to wait until I was 21 to buy it legally in a bar, even though I'd had plenty before then. Down the street from the dorms was Colonel Brooks Tavern, a local hangout for the CUA crowd. Naturally, it was the first place I headed after rehearsal for some play of which I now have no memory. What I do remember was Charlie insisting he buy me the first drink. He asked me what I wanted and I said, "Bourbon." He ordered me a shot (they served drinks that way back then kids) and one for himself and we toasted my 21st. Then another. And another. Then he insisted on tequila. Then I said, "Hey how about shome Sh-sh-shcotch?" Before long there were a few tables pushed together and about eight to ten (at times I'm sure I saw 16 to 20) of my fellow students all buying me free booze and enjoying the show. I am someone who, as they say, prefers to be onstage at all times and this night I was, pun intended, drinking it up.

Later that night, upon arriving back at my dorm, my body decided, quite independently of my own wishes, that it no longer wanted any of that alcohol inside it anymore and thought it best that the booze make a grand exit for the ages in the water closet just around the corner. Which it did. Dramatically and loudly.

I think about all of this with fond memories of Charlie. Sure it would've happened without him but he got the ball rolling that night and I'll never think of it without thinking of him. And now he's gone. The article says he died of natural causes and nothing more so I don't know if it had anything to do with that accident all those years ago. But I do know this: 65 is far too young to leave this plane of existence. And once you've left, you're not coming back. And that makes me restless.

I started this blog due to some of that restlessness. It's had its ups and downs and there have been times when life seemed to be conspiring to keep me from doing it. Financial problems have been the main thing (lawsuits, I.R.S. actions). My wife and I built up a mountain load of debt trying to build a stable environment for our children after a rather messy divorce and custody entanglements. No matter how bad you think your finances suck they're nothing compared to mine. Tens upon tens of thousands and tens of thousands more owed to the IRS because we didn't pay taxes on our take home because we needed money to pay rent, buy food and keep the phone hooked up. Believe you me, some phrases become cliche because they're simply unbeatable when it comes to revealing the truth and in this case the cliche that springs to mind is "when it rains, it pours." But feel no pity for me (and Argentina, if you're reading this, don't you dare cry for me). I've got a wonderful, beautiful family and just about the most understanding, caring, thoughtful and most beautiful wife a man could possibly hope for. And on top of all that, she's an inspiration.

Right now my wife and fellow artists are putting the finishing touches on a gallery that will be opening soon and featuring their art. They had a very successful art show a couple of months back and this gallery opening is an extension of that. The gallery has only a temporary lease so it's not permanent but it is inspiring. It's inspiring because we get up before dawn and drive into work before anyone else gets there so that she can leave early to pick up our seven year old (she of the milkshake line) from school or camp, get home and make lunch and dinner for everyone. And then once I've gotten home late from taking the bus and metro and get the kitchen, and whatever else needs it, cleaned up and help with laundry and homework I go downstairs and peruse DVDs for ideas about upcoming posts. I find that hard enough but how she finds to time to paint incredible works of art I don't know. But she does. She is an artist and that's all she wants to be and nothing is going to stop her. And this I know about myself: All I want to do is make movies.

I enjoy writing about them too and have no intention of ever willingly stopping that aspect of my love for movies. But I want to make them. I have no camera equipment and no money to purchase any so my digital camera with it's video capability will just have to do. And that's just fine. One thing my wife and I always talk about is how someone can have the most expensive, bells and whistles laden guitar in the world and not play a lick (*cough*my rich roommate in college*cough*). Another buys a ukulele for fifty cents at the thrift store and makes beautiful music. It's not the camera that matters, it's the movie it's being used to create. To a degree.

I often wonder - Was it more difficult to make a good movie in the early days of filmmaking? Should I admire the silent screen giants more than some hot young director today? Did working with limited technology necessitate more creativity? These aren't questions one can find the answers to through research and collection of empirical data and yet I am inclined to answer "Yes" for all three.

With the prevalence of relatively cheap digital technology available today we have become a world of photographers and filmmakers, loading up our Flickr accounts with our latest works of art and wondering why Pulitzer hasn't called yet. And I don't necessarily mean that flippantly. I've seen amateur photos on Flickr that I found extraordinary in composition and subject matter and knew that whoever took them had a gift for photography. I've seen others where just because someone learns how to adjust the light filter for their 578th picture of a sunset they think they've done something the world will never forget. It goes both ways.

Same with YouTube as well as short subjects that I get sent for reviews. People send me links to their short movies to review (any film blogger out there is probably all too familiar with this - I usually send them a reply saying that I'm not really a review site) and some of them are quite good while others have been made only because they could be made. Because it's so goddamn easy to put together a movie of any kind at this moment in history. Because high quality special effects and green screen software cost a couple of hundred bucks, not hundreds of thousands. If you want to make a movie go right ahead. Really, there's nothing stopping you at this point. But can you make a good one?

In the early days of movies there was limited technology. There was no sound (except for occasional pre-recorded effects), no color (except for hard to light two-color saturation processes) and poor film stock that easily and quickly degraded and had a tendency to burst into flames if not properly stored. Putting together an hour and a half to two hour film with only inter-titles as your dialogue required generous amounts of creativity. It makes the works of those early filmmakers all the more impressive to me. If you've seen Lumière et compagnie (1995) you know what I mean. In that film, directors from David Lynch to Spike Lee were asked to make short movies using the 1895 technology and the results are mixed at best. They give it a go but still maintain a modern sensibility or play off of the limitations in a modern way that, to my eyes at least, made their efforts underwhelming. And even if their short movies are still decent efforts they don't compare to their greatest modern works because there is just so much one can do with century old technology. But that's the point. So when I see a movie like Sunrise with it's multiple exposures, optical effects, indoor and outdoor photography and above all, a great story and well told, I am amazed.

So as not to confuse, I'm not saying that filmmakers today don't hold up to the filmmakers of the silent era. As with any era, there was more dreck and mediocrity than quality work at any given moment. I'm saying that it's so easy to put a movie together now that artistic laziness can all too often creep into the mix. Decades ago writers and directors had to come up with creative work arounds for effects that couldn't be achieved. Often, it made the film better. Cat People and Jaws are two examples where NOT showing anything was much more effective than showing it. And on Jaws, by the time they could get the damn mechanical shark to work ... well ... let's just say there are times when I wish they hadn't. I like not seeing it in the beginning much more than seeing it at the end.

On Night of the Demon, another film directed by Jacques Tourneur of the aforementioned Cat People, the demon is not seen and the film works to great effect as a result. Until... you see the demon, the demon that the producer insisted be in the movie. And let me tell you, Tourneur was right to protest until his throat was bloody and sore. That demon is not only ridiculous looking, it's movie crushing. The whole film comes crashing down in the all important final minutes because of it.

Today of course, Night of the Demon, Cat People and Jaws would have CGI demons, cat women and sharks from the opening credits until the lights came up. And they'd be lesser movies for it. Even when the rare movie comes out that shows less (The Blair Witch Project) and is a success as a result, no one learns from it. The Blair Witch Project would and could have been made in the early days of filmmaking. It understands work arounds, it understands creativity in the face of minimal technology. And even if the characters are a little on the dull side and do things like cross over flowing water twice without thinking to simply follow it downstream, they were improvised and inhabited by young actors willing to take a chance on a different concept. And above all else, without showing a single thing, it provided one of the creepiest endings to a horror film I've seen in many a moon. But there aren't many Blair Witch Projects out there and filmmakers today would much rather show the witch anyway. To use that old canard, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

So how many of us are making movies because we can, and not because we must? The most important thing for me is the love of the form and that's where the dilettantes are exposed in the face of those who have it in their blood. Charlie Murphy acted because he had to, even when a drunk driver nearly made it impossible. My wife paints because she has too, even when there are only 30 minutes in the day when she can. And those filmmakers of old, from Murnau to Keaton and from Eisenstein to Chaplin, made movies because they had to, even if they couldn't always achieve the effects they wanted (although Keaton probably did). They're an inspiration to me, all of them. And in Charlie Murphy there's a reminder; do what you must and do it now because we're not here for very long. And when we're gone, we're gone forever.

*********

Charlie has two IMDB listing based on his two different name billings. First one is here and the second one is here.

It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Vermont was great as always but it's good to be back. That's me in Vermont having the time of my life swinging Natalie Wood with Nick Adams' help. No, wait a minute, I mean, that's me and Dennis Hopper swinging Natalie. No, wait. Actually, that's Dennis Hopper and Nick Adams swinging me, dressed as Natalie Wood. Hold on, I'm not in the picture at all. It was a long drive and I'm a bit tired. And, uh, wow, they just don't make rugs like that anymore huh? Let's hope it was synthetic but something tells me it wasn't.

So While I'm Gone...

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:00:00 +0000

...this face

_________________

...and this face

_________________

... and this face

... are all connected. But how?!!?!?

****UPDATE***

I'm still in Vermont but here's the deal: Dancing - Think Dancing. And think "choreography." It may be a tad obscure but if you do some searching I'm sure you'll soon discover the design of the puzzle. And there is a connection, I'm not dreaming it. Yep, as soon as you get the first pic then things should heat up and you'll be out of the starting gate.

Today's the Fourth of July...

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:00:00 +0000

... Another June has gone by
And when they light up our town I just think
What a waste of gun powder and sky

Well, Aimee may feel that way but I've always liked a good fireworks display, as long as I'm not involved (I hate the stink and clean-up of those things). Living in the D.C. area has afforded me the opportunity to see some grand displays on the Mall but I've never done so; it feels like a tourist thing to do. If you live here why would you want to go down to the Mall, somewhere you've been a thousand times, only this time there are 100 times more people smashing up against you and reeking of sweat and egg salad? No thanks. The best firework display I've seen here was out in Hagerstown at a Suns game (that's the local Farm Team there - we're talking baseball in case anyone's confused). They have fireworks throughout the season anyway after certain games (usually Friday games) but the 4th of July one was great - and LOUD! Because it's a small stadium and the fireworks, which are of the big professional variety, are shot off just past the bleachers you can feel soundwaves hit you and rumble through the stands. This year they're playing the West Virginia Power on the fourth in West Virginia and I'll be in Vermont so neither I nor the Suns will be missing each other's company.

Now I know what you're thinking (you're probably not thinking it but just pretend you are to make me feel better). You're thinking, "You live a skip and jump away from not one but two Major League Teams, the Nationals and the Orioles, and you go to the Hagerstown Suns?" Yes. Yes, I do. Know why? Because, with all apologies to Dennis Cozzalio, Major League Parks just don't do it for me. They're big, imposing, cost a fortune and have no feeling of intimacy at all, not even in the best of the old parks (I'm sure many will disagree with that).

For me, the difference between a big Major League park and a Farm Team diamond with bleachers on two sides is the difference between the big, corporate Multiplex and the locally owned revival house or drive-in theatre. One is big and splashy and looks sterile and the other is, well, kind of trashy, but in a good way.

One of my favorite sporting experiences came from a couple of drunken fans seated behind me at a Suns game. I can't remember who the Suns were playing but I'll never forget the name of their opponent's Third Base Coach: Forbes. All through the game the two guys behind us mercilessly lofted one heckle after another at poor old Forbes, that name emblazoned across the back of his uniform (much to his regret I'm sure). Some favorites of my wife and I: "You're the backbone of this team Forbes!" "I want to have your children Forbes!" "Forbes, I can't resist you any longer. Marry me!" Just like a favorite line from a movie my wife or I will occasionally trot out the "backbone" line when mocking someone's efforts.

Now, sure, you get hecklers at the big parks too but they usually don't have the ability to entertain the entire stadium. At a small park the "Forbes" hecklers could be heard... well... everywhere. They were getting laughs from the other side of the diamond. And if they're not entertaining, don't worry, everyone will tell them to shut up. It's like one big loud, drunken, trashy family. So if you're in a town with both a Major League team and a Farm Team support the Farm Team. They need your support more. Keep rooting for the big team of course (wouldn't want them to leave town) but occasionally drop by that bleachered field and say "Hi" to your local Forbes. And if the mood strikes you, ask him to marry you.

Happy Fourth of July to my fellow American Yankee readers and Happy Friday to everyone else across the world.

Favorite Moments: McCabe and Mrs. Miller

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:00:00 +0000

A Year in the Bag

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Well I've been doing this a year now. I'm not going to write anything special or meaningful about blogging because I wouldn't know what to write. I know this is the last time I'll point out any anniversary dates to anybody until, and if, I make it to the ten year mark. I'm not much for doing this kind of thing every year and it seems silly and a little ego-centric anyway. After all, it's a blog, nothing more. But I do want to send out a technorati firestorm of linking thanks for everyone who has commented here and made me feel welcome in the film blogosphere in this last year. Comments mean a lot to me here and in case you haven't noticed I enjoy responding to comments and carrying on conversations well past the point of the topic at hand. So without further ado, and in alphabetical order, I'd like to thank

Arbogast

Ali Arikan

Larry Aydlette

Jeremy B

Cool Beveridge

Bill

Campaspe

Dennis Cozzalio

Brian Doan

Mike Doc

Editor A

Jim Emerson

Marilyn Ferdinand

Flickhead

Patricia Fraser

Fox

Peet Gelderblom

Ed Hardy, jr

Mrs. Emma Peel

Dan Jensen

Kimberly Lindbergs

Ken Lowery

Marisa

Moviezzz

Lucas McNelly

Peter Nellhaus

Rick Olson

Sheila O'Malley

Mr. Peel

Ted Pigeon

Pat Piper

Nathanial R

Adam Ross

Rick Ryan

Neil Sarver

Matt Zoller Sietz

Bob Turnbull

Gautam Valluri

Hedwig van Driel

It's inevitable that I will forget someone as I'm doing this from memory so if I do, I apologize. And thanks to all the other film and pop culture bloggers who've never commented here but keep me interested in everything they write on their own blogs.

In two days I'm off for my annual adventure in Vermont. I'll have laptops handy but I suck at preparing posts in advance so for the rest of the week and into next week I'll mainly be doing more "Favorite Moments" video clips and photo scans for "Cinema Still Life." Actually, I do have a few written posts prepared but I want to be a part of the comment conversation so I'm not posting them until I get back on Tuesday. And for the video and picture posts that I have scheduled to go up I won't have the opportunity to comment back and forth on them like I normally do but don't let that stop you. I promise I'll respond, just not as quickly as normal.

I leave you with a look back at Cinema Styles' first year in banners. Several of the later ones are animated when on the blog but all I show in the slide show is the final frame of the animated banner so if you want to see any of them in all their glory just click on the "Animated Banners" button on the sidebar. And I recommend watching it on the high quality setting so it's not all blurry like. Of course, everyone here should know the music used, its composer and movie. Thanks again everyone!

Favorite Moments: The Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Favorite Moments: The Hospital

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:00:00 +0000

More favorite moments as I search for the meaning of life. Forgive the abundance of them but I plan on putting them up whenever I feel the itch to do so and this weekend as I prepare for a vacation, a gallery opening (more on that Monday or Tuesday) and a hell week at work I give you two favorite moments of mine from the movies. First this one from The Hospital, Network's neglected step-child (or should that be step-father since it came first?). George C. Scott is superb (that's probably needless to say but I said it anyway) as the doctor going through a somewhat late mid-life crisis.

Tomorrow, a very short favorite moment from a movie that I've been seeing all over teh intranets lately and since it's a favorite of mine I figured I'd jump in the fray. If you haven't seen it I'm not sure if the favorite moment will do anything for you. If you have seen it, and therefore know everything that immediately preceded the scene, then you'll understand why I find it so funny - and so perfectly done by the actor in the scene. But that's all I'm saying for now, you'll see it tomorrow.

You Get More, More, More with Morlocks

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Recently I sat down with Richard Harland Smith of TCM's Movie Morlocks for a brief interview about the making of Frames of Reference. Well, okay, actually I sat at my computer and he at his and we e-mailed each other questions and answers but you get the idea. It's brief but provides some insight into the making of the movie so please give it a look if you like. Some of the interview had to be edited for length (at the last minute it was mutually decided that a full description of my anal warts was inappropriate to the task at hand) but the basic idea of what I wanted to get across is there. And thanks to Richard for being understanding of a few edit requests wherein describing an opening scene idea I came off sounding like a disturbed sociopath. Hey, it happens. Enjoy, and if you've not yet viewed Frames of Reference (and recommended a viewing to 10,000 of your closest friends) please do so. Thanks.

Favorite Moments: The Devil and Daniel Webster

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Beyond Belief: Trinity and Beyond

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:00:00 +0000

Around this time of year I always beginning reading about the Manhattan Project. It enters my psyche this time every year as the date draws closer to July 16th, that fateful day in history when, in 1945, the world officially entered the atomic age. I have a small library of information, biographies and histories on the subject as it's fascinated me for years. Around nine or ten years ago I bought a DVD entitled Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie. According to the info on the back cover it won a Silver Hugo at the Chicago International Film Festival, the Gold Award at both Worldfest Houston and Worldfest Charleston (apparently Worldfest just couldn't get enough of it) and the Golden Scroll from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films. Pretty impressive, I guess. Upon finishing up my first viewing of it my immediate reaction was, "Wow, must of been a pretty damn weak year at the Worldfest." Ten years later, that reaction hasn't changed.

Trinity and Beyond is the work of Peter Kuran, special effects expert who has an Oscar for a color film restoration process he engineered and one he uses to great effect here. The problem with Trinity and Beyond is that's all it is, a restoration of nuclear bomb tests with William Shatner narrating, William Stromberg providing some of the most bombastic film music in history and dry, very dry, analysis. It offers no insight into the tests, no opinion on the decisions made, no social commentary. It's just... there.*

The problem with all of this is that the choice of music, narration and interview subjects makes the documentary appear to be pro atmospheric testing.

The documentary contains all of two interview subjects: Physicists Edward Teller and Frank Shelton. If you don't know who Edward Teller is (and I have no idea why you wouldn't) the following linked ad pretty much sums him up perfectly. It was taken out in The Washington Post after the Three Mile Island accident. I'd tell you the headline of the ad but it's too beautiful to spoil the surprise. It simply must be clicked on here. Teller has two interview clips in the documentary, both strongly in favor of nuclear weapons and testing and both letting the viewer know how why he was ahead of his time in his thinking (one does not go to Edward Teller for modesty or humility).

Then there's physicist Frank Shelton, or as I like to call him, the Human Sleeping Pill. I'd show you a clip of Shelton from the film but I don't want you falling asleep reading my blog. Here is a man who in the face of all of the horrors of nuclear warfare drones academically about pellets of tritium boosting yields by 45 percent. Nothing - nothing - excites him. Even nuclear weaponry's awe inspiring power seems lost on him. It's all yields and pre-cursor winds and how best to measure them. Here's an excerpt I found online from Shelton's book Reflections of a Nuclear Weaponeer, where he discusses measuring the shock wave of a blast. Read it if you dare:

"Aren't the smoke trails way in back of the detonation?" I queried. "And they didn't appear to have been shot by the blast until quite late.?" "That's right," Cox elaborated, "the high density air immediately behind the shock front causes a refraction break in the apparent position of the smoke trails." "I see, that's neat. If you want to define the shock front conditions, however," I continued, "couldn't you also define the shock conditions on the interior of the blast wave by observing the compression of the smoke and also measuring the particle velocity?" "I guess so," responded Everett, "but it sounds pretty complicated to me." **

Sheila, I think you've got a new book to review! If nothing else I just want someone to tell me how Cox became Everett.

In between Teller's ego rants and Shelton's verbal Seconal injections there's nuclear test footage, and lots of it. Beautifully (if that's the right word) restored footage of nuclear bombs blowing up. Footage of pigs and goats being fried in their wake. Footage of houses and buildings and buses imploding upon impact of the shock wave. Footage of bombs being blown up in space. Lots and lots of footage with no perceivable point of view. None. It succeeds in detailing decades of nuclear weapons testing without having any point of view about it. How can you not have a passionate point of view about it one way or another? Well, he doesn't. And then the movie ends. Ah, but that ending.

The finale is the only point where Kuran seems to be trying to make some sort of a statement but what is it? I don't know, I really don't. Maybe you, dear reader, can help me. I've put the finale up below. It starts by saying how many tests the United States did and how many countries signed the treaty to stop testing. Then it says "However" and shows scenes from China's Cultural Revolution followed by one of the most bizarre nuclear tests you've ever seen. But that's not all! The tests has been mashed-up by Kuran. Yep, I know my test footage (as I explained at the start I've been obsessed with this for a long time) and Kuran uses at least four separate tests as well as CGI created smoke effects. So what's his point? We shouldn't have stopped testing because China started testing? We should be prepared for all out nuclear war with China? Christ I don't know. I do know this: The footage you are about to watch from the end of the film is the only original and interesting moment in the whole movie. I've talked with friends who've watched it as well and that's pretty much all they remember: The Chinese soldiers shooting machine guns at the camera as they ride on horseback towards a nuclear explosion, with both themselves and the horses decked out in gas masks. It's quite a sight to see. The movie isn't.

* Further evidence that Kuran has never actually thought upon the subject of nuclear weapons and what they mean to civilization: The DVD I ordered from his company (this was in the days before Amazon had everything under the sun) came with 3-D glasses for a special 3-D explosion, a viewfinder reel of blasts and a little slide viewer with a picture of a detonation that you hold up to the light. Ugh. McDonald's must've turned him down on a tie-in deal.

**Shelton, Frank H. 1988. Reflections of a Nuclear Weaponeer. Shelton Enterprise Inc. pp. 6-13 to 6-14.

Favorite Moments: Local Hero (1983)

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Favorite Moments

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:05:00 +0000

Back when I started this blog in 1977 on my brand new Commodore PET I never dreamed it would evolve into the mega-empire you now see before you, pulling in millions of readers daily and raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in ad revenue. I never dreamt that because it never happened - and never will. But hey, I have a fun time doing it anyway. It's fun to see how it's evolved in the year I've been doing it (anniversary coming up, gift registry will be set up soon).

When I look back at the early posts they seem so different from what I write now. One series I wanted to do when I first started this blog was covering favorite moments in movies. It quickly became whole scenes, with plenty of screengrabs and analysis and I tired of it. All I really wanted to do was show some of my favorite moments in movies. Now that the technology has completely caught up with my whims I'm going to start it up again only this time I'm doing it the way I wanted to in the beginning. I'm telling you so you'll know what the hell all the video posts are that keep popping up. Some will be a minute or so long but most, the large majority, will be a few seconds to half a minute. They're just moments, moments I like or love for whatever reason. No damn analysis, no explanation, just the scenes, or moments, and that's it.

They will come from movies big and small and while a few may be famous scenes, 90 percent won't be. They will just be a little moment that makes me smile, or cringe or react in some way memorable to me from the movie. I hope they will either be favorites of yours as well, or if you haven't seen the movie in question that maybe you'll want to after watching that little snippet.

That's all. I'll put one up soon and from a decade roundly ignored here on Cinema Styles, the eighties. I didn't like a lot of the movies from the eighties but oddly, as I snag clips for this series, I find I have a lot of favorite moments from movies of that decade. Not more than any other decade but enough to surprise me nonetheless.

And now I'm off to negotiate another $250,000 ad space here on the site that several studios are fighting over. Hey I can dream can't I?

All Glory is Fleeting; Just Ask Thomas Meighan

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:00:00 +0000

About a month ago the Siren put up a post on movie actors she didn't like. It elicited a big response and after reading her choices I wrote a lengthy comment myself. A quick summation: I said that few of the actors she mentioned were well known to the average filmgoer today with some exceptions (Bing Crosby, Ronald Reagan). Now, of course, anyone here knows them all and everyone who visits her site knows them all and there's not an obscure name on the list but to the average filmgoer today the names Dan Dailey or Jeanette MacDonald won't ring a bell. If you don't believe me do what I did; ask any of your non-cinephile co-workers if they know either of them. The answer I got was "no" as I suspected it would be (full disclosure - I didn't ask anyone in their sixties or up - the point is to see if a star is known to someone who was not born until that star's career was either over or they were dead). Now ask your co-workers if they've heard of Katherine Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant or James Cagney. Unless they're very young, I bet you'll get a "yes."

My point on the Siren's post was that maybe the reason they're not as remembered is because they lacked something that translates through the decades that those other names don't lack and maybe that's why they don't appeal to the Siren or many other cinephiles. At any given time there are hundreds to thousands of actors working in the movies. Of that lot, many a multitude is famous. Go through the top box office winners of the week and there won't be a movie where you don't recognize at least one of the actor's names. In most cases, you should recognize at least three. If that's the average, that's thirty actors right there that are currently famous plus a couple hundred more that you and I could easily name. That's now. What about in 80 years? Who will be left? And why?

To prove I'm not crazy (without spending money on psychiatrists and expensive drugs) I turned to my old movie books. I've got quite a few. When I say "old" I don't just mean the ones I got when I was a kid from the seventies and eighties or ones that were old then, from the sixties. I mean "old" as in forties and fifties (in case you're wondering, secondhand bookstore). One that I was thumbing through after the Siren's post was Classics of the Silent Screen from the mid-fifties. At the time it was written the Silent Period hadn't been over for even thirty years yet so it would be like reading a book today on classics of the seventies and early eighties. The interesting thing is when you get to the section "The 75 Greatest Stars of the Silents." Now I'm a cinephile and have been since I was in grade school. I've watched a plethora of old movies and read through stacks and stacks of movie books and I can tell you that a good 20 percent of the names were unfamiliar to me. Of the other 80 percent I recognized, at least half I knew by name only. That is, when I see the name "Mae Murray" I know she's an actress from the early days of Hollywood and I even had a still from Circe, the Enchantress on my sidebar for the longest time several months back. But I don't really know Mae Murray. I don't know 90 percent of her movies. I just know the name.

Others, like Ben Turpin and Harry Langdon, I easily recognize by name and face because of their distinctive looks and styles (what movie book of old doesn't have a picture of Turpin's crossed-eyes?) and even know a few of their movies.

Then there's the stars that every cinephile knows: Lon Chaney, Ronald Colman, John Barrymore, Clara Bow, Louise Brooks, Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Greta Garbo, Lillian Gish. And of those, known to the average filmgoer, is probably Chaplin, Garbo, maybe Keaton. Think I'm wrong? Go back to your co-workers (unless you work in the movies or with other film critics that is). I am constantly amazed at people having no idea who Clara Bow is, or Ronald Colman or yes Buster Keaton and Lon Chaney. I'm serious. You follow movies your whole life and you think those people are known to everyone and, well, sad to say, they're not.

At any given time in Hollywood there are hundreds of famous names but time whittles it down until there are just a few mega stars left, stars that if not known to the average filmgoer by face are at least known by name.

One example I gave on the Siren's site of someone who has enjoyed recent fame was William Atherton. Anyone who watched movies in the seventies and eighties knows William Atherton. He starred in The Sugarland Express, Day of the Locust, Looking For Mr. Goodbar, The Hindenburg and others. Not in bit parts, he starred in them. Then he fell to supporting and minor supporting (Ghostbusters, Die Hard) then appearances on popular tv shows. His star burned out. Something about him just didn't work for enough people in enough movies and Hollywood selected him out of the lead roles. We all know him now and our kids may be familiar with him vaguely due to things like Ghostbusters but in fifty years good luck finding a thirty year old filmgoer who knows who in the hell William Atherton is.

And who will be selected out now? I have a few nominees on both ends of the spectrum. While Oscar winners tend to stay in the memory longer winning an Oscar is still no guarantee. Most filmgoers today and even some cinephiles aren't familiar with George Arliss despite his Oscar win. Nevertheless it's a definite advantage. Stars of the eighties and before are already well established and we're already seeing who will remain and who will not. Stars like Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro and Faye Dunaway are here to stay. I don't think many people will be scratching their heads over those names 80 years from now. Stars from the nineties through today like Daniel Day Lewis, Russell Crowe, Julia Roberts, Denzel Washington and Cate Blanchett will still be known in 80 years, probably. But how about Halle Berry, Hillary Swank, Jude Law, Mark Ruffalo? And you should know, if you haven't already picked up on it, none of this has to do with their respective talents as actors. I don't think Mark Ruffalo will be forgotten and Russell Crowe remembered because one is a better or worse actor than the other. I don't think William Atherton is a bad actor, in fact, I think he's very good. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood (definitely remembered forever - no doubt at all) in Unforgiven, "Talent's got nothing to do with it."

Personally, I would lament Mark Ruffalo not being remembered but so far, I don't think he has the "star power," whatever that is exactly, to translate through the ages. Hell, most people I talk to today don't know who he is so what chance does he have with history. But I want him to be remembered because I think he's one of the best actors in the movies today. When I think of other actors who will be remembered for sure that I don't like it Ruffalos my feathers even more. For instance, I know Tom Cruise is here to stay. Now I thought he was terrific as Frank "T.J." Mackey in Magnolia. I thought he was good in his breakout movie Risky Business. But I don't like him. Really, I don't. Ah hell, I'll be honest, I can't stand the guy. I'm not talking about acting talent (though judge it as you will) I'm saying I don't like him. He bugs me. He makes movies he's in unenjoyable to me (unless he's playing a dick, like in Magnolia). I want him selected out and Mark Ruffalo selected in but I know that's not going to happen.

And I want forgotten stars of the twenties and thirties to be rediscovered. I brought up Glenda Farrell both at the Siren's site and here shortly thereafter and re-submit her name for rediscovery now. As Arbogast said in the comments on my post about her, she was "a force of nature." Indeed. And how about others from the thirties and forties that have fallen away? Or the fifties and sixties? Actors that we wish more people knew, and some actors that we wish they'd just forget about. I've got quite a list but I'll wrap this up now and leave it with Ruffalo and Farrell for the time being. I'd hate to flash forward to the future and find Ruffalo's name as unfamiliar as Thomas Meighan, mentioned in the title of this post. He was one of the 75 Great Stars mentioned in that book. He made over 80 movies. And now his IMDB mini-bio begins this way: "Sadly, this once-popular silent screen star and older matinée idol for Paramount Studios, is all but forgotten today. Thomas "Tommy" Meighan was one of the rulers of the Hollywood roost, between the years 1915 and 1928." I could be wrong of course. Careers of those mentioned in this post could skyrocket or fall unexpectedly in the next century or so. But there are so many talented actors in the movies both yesterday and today that it's a shame so many of them will have the same opening to their mini-bios in a century that Meighan does now. Truly. As George C. Scott, who starred in Hindenburg with William Atherton, says at the conclusion of Patton, "All glory is fleeting."

Joan Crawfords End Up in the Strangest Places

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:15:00 +0000

In fanzine ads waiting for a new name.

Pushing down the burgers on the beach for studio publicity.

Breaking Bobby's heart with a ukulele and a song!

Saving the Ice Follies!

And barefootin' it in Mountain Dew Commercials!

When I was a petulant teen I would have called the publicity stunts, the Ice Follies and the Mountain Dew commercial nothing more than a series of sellouts, voluntary or not. Now I call it something else: Hard working. Joan, like so many of the older Hollywood professionals, worked her butt off til the day she died. Or at least it seemed that way. Maybe that's why I like them (and Joan) so much.

Speaking of which, I've been working pretty hard myself (though not as hard as Joan). Sorry for the delay in posting (well, delay for this blog at least. I usually have something each day or every other day) but I've been a tad obsessive lately with some movies I'm working on and when the editing and creative juices combine it's a chemically deadly combination of "I cannot focus on anything else. Kids? We have kids?" I'm kidding about the last part of course. I received a very beautifully done hand-drawn card yesterday and then... worked on my movie some more. Anyway, I finished one of them up so it's back to normal for the time being. So that's it for now. And yes, that is Matt Helm (Dino) in the banner? You got a problem with that?

Stars on Stage III: One More Guessing Game

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:00:00 +0000

Okay, this is the last Stars on Stage for a while, promise. Anyway, this is a still from a production of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman. We all know, or should, that that's George C. Scott front and off-center as Willy Loman. The question is who are the three actors behind him. Sure you can google it but can you guess without googling? All three are famous film actors. The one in front is the least famous with the least amount of big films to his name but the two in back are quite famous indeed with many a big film. The one all the way in the back is so covered in shadow it would be impossible to guess without prior knowledge but try anyway.

Break a leg!

The Direction and Imagination of Peter Brook as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Cinema Styles Under the Direction of the Marquis de Lapper

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:05:00 +0000

All this talk of stars on stage, and a mention of Lotte Lenya and The Three-Penny Opera in the comment section by Marilyn, got me to thinking of my days of studying theatre, Peter Brook and his film version of The Beggar's Opera (1953).

I still haven't seen it.

Peter Brook's name came up often when I was formally studying theatre in college and anyone who has studied the theatre is probably familiar with The Empty Space, his book on theatre that emphasizes the importance of the connection between performers and audience, and is less enthralled with that connection taking place in a traditional setting.

I must admit some of my most engaging memories of theatre have come from small intimate spaces rather than the large 500 seat auditorium. I once saw a production of Hurlyburly performed in a lab space in which there were only two rows of fold up chairs in front of the performers and two along the right side. Sometimes the characters were screaming at each other right in front of your face, other times sex was being had at your feet. Make-up was important in this space. That is, it couldn't look like make-up. When the stripper shows up screaming after being thrown out of the car, it looked like someone had just beaten her up off-stage to achieve the proper effect. And when they smoked their joints on stage, they understood the space they were in. They knew the audience could not avoid the smoke, or the smell. The smell of cigarettes would've spoiled the illusion so when they fired up, well, let's just say the aroma was unmistakable. To this day it still feels like the only reality show I ever saw in person. Peter Brook would have liked it I think.

Brook played with color on stage often and to great effect. His production of A Midsummer Night's Dream* for the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in 1970 is now legendary and you can read about it here. There are some great stills on the page from their archives, including one showing a young Ben Kingsley as Demetrius, but none as good as this one (IMHO), provided by yours truly:

Another legendary production of Brook's at the RSC was Marat/Sade** (1964), which he later made into a film in 1967. Here's a still from the RSC production:

Brook worked in film sporadically, never devoting his full attention to it as his love for the stage was too great. The only films of Peter Brook that I've seen are Lord of the Flies (1963 - B/W) and Marat/Sade (1967 - Color), but the one I've wanted to see for years is The Beggar's Opera which stands as the only musical Laurence Olivier ever did. He even did his own singing. Olivier plays the infamous highwayman Macheath, Mack the Knife to you and me, and Hugh Griffith is the beggar relating the story. But alas, the DVD is only available in Europe. On this side of the pond the usually reliable Netflix only has the Roger Daltry version. Given the fact that so many people now have region-free DVD players I wish Netflix would start carrying more European imports and simply label what region they are for the unaware. Oh well.

So I will continue my quest to see Brook's version of The Beggar's Opera, and recommend a reading of The Empty Space to anyone interested in the theatre who has not yet read it. Brook turned 83 in March and to my knowledge still works in the theatre. As recently as 2002 he helmed a production of Hamlet for television. And even if his best work is behind him, it's an impressive enough body of work to require no further elaboration.

______________________________

* When putting on the production on Broadway a year later, Brook received the Tony for Best Direction.

** Brook received the Tony for Best Direction for the New York production for this as well.

Stars on Stage II: The Totally Screwed Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:45:00 +0000

British born Jessica Tandy was replaced by British born Vivien Leigh in the role of the faded Southern Belle Blanch DuBois for the movie version of A Streetcar Named Desire and Julie Andrews got pushed aside in favor of Audrey Hepburn for My Fair Lady. Both actresses totally screwed. Or were they?

Tandy seemed content to act on the stage as her sporadic film appearances before and after her Broadway success with Streetcar attest to. Andrews however plunged headlong into movies starting in 1964. Jack Warner decided to go with Hepburn over Andrews, reasoning that she had more star power, despite the fact that Andrews had starred in the most successful television event of all time up to that point, Cinderella; had starred in the most successful Broadway musical of all time up to that point, My Fair Lady and the soundtrack album for which, plus appearances on Ed Sullivan performing songs from Camelot (which she was also starring in) had made her a household name, or, if you will, a star.

So what if Jack Warner hadn't made his infamous decision? We know that Walt Disney offered her Mary Poppins based on seeing her in Camelot and even waited for her to finish her run and have her first daughter before starting but Disney was only able to make the offer because she wasn't going to be busy making My Fair Lady.

So what if she had made My Fair Lady and not Mary Poppins? Would Audrey Hepburn have done Mary Poppins? Doubt it. Would Andrews have still done The Sound of Music? Probably. So what would have changed? Probably nothing. So why is it that that Warner decision is still so infamous? Still so hated? Maybe he did the right thing. Frankly, I've never been a fan of either movie and I really don't care that Hepburn isn't singing her own songs. And Andrews has, for me, an incredibly low order of sex appeal, making it hard to believe that Henry Higgins would suddenly be smitten with Eliza if played by Andrews. I can believe it more with Audrey Hepburn in the role. And Rex Harrison's Henry Higgins has even less appeal on all counts which is one of my main problems with My Fair Lady. Higgins, as played by Harrison, is such an unsympathetic pig, such an ego maniacal jackass, that I can't see anyone on Earth falling for him, under any conditions. Now if he had been played with more humor and charm by someone like Cary Grant, or to go with someone just starting at the time and closer to Hepburn in age, Peter O'Toole, then I could understand the motivations of the characters better. Then I could understand them falling for each other.

So Warner's decision? He didn't go far enough. He should have replaced Harrison too. Then I might actually have enjoyed it.

Stars on the Stage I

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:30:00 +0000

With tomorrow being Judy Garland's birthday, I started thinking of Hollywood stars who also made a big splash on stage, before, during or throughout their film career. And then I thought, "Hey, I've got a zillion stars on stage pictures, I should put some up." But of course it's never that simple. I must always play a game. No DVD giveaway (but another will be happening) this time, just an acknowledgement that you are godlike in your supreme gift for facial identification. And who doesn't want that gift? Also, this one's pretty freaking easy!

Okay, we all know that's Meryl Streep second from the front. My question is, who are the two actresses on either side of her? I'm not telling the name of the play either, lest it be too easily researched by the Bills among you (although Bill, feel free to research away). I don't think very much research will be required anyway. Both became quite well known on television. So...

Name those Actresses!

Yep, She's the Star.

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Was there ever any doubt?

The Answer was under Your Nose, but the Question Never Arose

noreply@blogger.com (Jonathan Lapper) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:00:00 +0000

I had this friend in college, Andy, who possessed a unique gift for clarity. He did this thing, you see, that consistently amazed friends and classmates alike. An example of what would happen time and time again is this: I'd be arguing with someone on a given topic, any topic, it didn't matter. We could be arguing for or against a particular movie, a politician, a foreign policy stance or some matter of historical minutiae. The argument would get heated, we'd dig in our heels and any possibility of a middle ground would grow more and more remote. Then Andy would show up.

"What are you guys talking about?" he'd ask. We'd tell him. Then he'd say, "The way I see it, ..." and proceed to deliver three or four sentences, at most, that would completely, totally, utterly, and absolutely end the argument. There would be silence, my friend and I would stare at each other, and stumble through sentences like, "Well... yeah... uh... I mean... yeah... that... I guess that pretty much settles it." He did it enough that fellow classmates joked about it, made reference to it and said in the midst of heated arguments, "If only Andy was here."

I lost touch with Andy years ago but had an Andy-like moment on the Scanners blog the other day. After Jim stated he wasn't the person to review Sex and the City commenters went back and forth about it. How could he say that? How could someone be the person to review Se7en? Isn't that a cop out? And so on. Then Andy, oops, I mean, Larry Aydlette showed up and wrote,

"How many times do critics feel that way about lots of movies and yet they never let the reader know? And do they owe them an explanation? All criticism is
subjective in the end, of course, but does this make a valid argument for movie critics to have specialties? Book critics who like mysteries tend to focus exclusively on their preferred genre. As do many art critics. And music critics, obviously. Movie critics, however, are expected to be great generalists,appreciative of every type of film. Why?"

Thanks Andy, er, Larry. In studying art criticism in college, where I was introduced to the criticisms of Roger Fry among others, it was made clear that there were experts in separate fields. Painting, sculpture, architecture and literature all had critics who were well versed in one style or period and that's what they wrote about. I knew that but never applied it to film criticism because no one ever asked (hence the title of the post).

To answer Larry's question of "why" I would say it's because the cinema is still so very new. It's periods are defined by decades, not centuries, and the definitions themselves are fuzzy. As for style, cinephiles are still arguing over what a genre even is. What makes a movie a Noir? Does it have to have a femme fatale? What makes a Screwball Comedy? How about Horror? There's monster horror (vampires, werewolves), slasher horror, ghost horror, serial killer horror - wait a minute - some are serial killer horror but some movies about serial killers are Police Procedurals. By the way, what makes a Police Procedural? Is it just an updated version of the Mystery genre? My guess is that a thousand years from now people won't care, or even see the difference. There will be 19th century film (the earliest and shortest period), 20th century, 21st century and so on. Perhaps they will have names. The 20th Century period might be the "Montage" period of film, in reference to the editing techniques that began to define the form in the teens, expand it in the twenties with filmmakers like Sergei Eisenstein and now has reached saturation point with rapid fire, quick-cut mini-montages accounting for 90 percent of the content of most action films (although to be a stickler, they are not really using disconnected images to create a coherent new text so maybe pure montage is already dead).

But hey, that's a thousand years from now. What about the present? In the present, I see the change already taking place. As bloggers and online critics continue to write without editorial control they naturally take themselves in one direction or another. They self-specialize. For now, it's those short ten year periods or those fuzzy genres. In the future, it will be whole centuries of cinema styles that will be their specialty at which point no one will feign shock over a critic saying, "I'm not the person to review this movie." It will be expected.

Which brings me back to the idea of who reviews what. I started thinking about what movies I am the reviewer for and which movies I am not. As far as specialized genre is concerned my favorites are science fiction, adventure and horror, though oddly many of my favorite films are low key dramas and always have been, but I guess I don't think of "low-key drama" as much of a definable genre. As far as period goes, my favorites are the thirties, especially the early thirties when the industry was re-learning the craft after the introduction of sound, and the late sixites to the mid-seventies.

Now I don't know nearly as much about horror as do notable bloggers like Kimberly Lindbergs, Stacie Ponder or Arbogast Von Gingersnap (I'm just assuming that's his full name). I'd call myself a fan but not an expert.

Then there's adventure. I love adventure movies, especially those in the mold of Gunga Din or The Man Who Would Be King but again I'm more of a fan than an expert.

But Sci-Fi. Yeah, I could review Sci-Fi. I've loved Sci-Fi since I was but a tot and have seen voluminous amounts of it. Now I'm not into Sci-Fi literature, at all, but I love Sci-Fi movies and television. I love them to the point where I'm one of those people you run into from time to time who gets visibly annoyed when someone thinks Star Wars is science fiction. It never turns out good. I try and explain that it's an adventure story, a fantasy story, a story steeped in the traditions of mythic heroes only to get, "Yeah but they got ray guns and fly around in space." That's usually when the twitch sets in and I start making audible verbal ticks.

So I'd have to say if I were part of a staff that reviewed movies or wrote about them historically, and all according to preference, I'd be the sci-fi reviewer and the thirties Hollywood historian. Those would be my gigs. We'd all share Drama I suppose.

I even started thinking about where I would place my fellow bloggers and commenters but came up empty most of the time. Larry for instance. I have no idea. Tough guy movies? You know Burt Reynolds stuff,or hard boiled detectives or streetwise dames. I'd definitely trust my instincts with putting him in charge of concert movies. But for the most part I don't know. I do know that while people naturally specialize their interests they hate being pigeon-holed and I understand. As much as I love Sci-Fi I wouldn't want to be thought of as "that Sci-Fi guy." I want people to know that I am well-rounded and have varied interests. I want people to know that I am not beholden to one particular genre or period for all of my entertainment. Maybe that's why film critics attempt to be generalists in this most popular of art forms. With only a little over a century of product available, no one wants to be limited to only a few years or a few movies.

So it will be quite a while before film criticism starts fully specializing itself into large century long periods. Until then, if you don't mind pigeon-holing yourself in public (as long as it's legal in your state) please do so. I'd love to know your position on the staff.