Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
I used to keep track of and watch the Oscars. Now, I am barely familiar with some of the films. Instead, I read Daughter of Daring, which is not only a biography of a stuntwoman/actor, but a history of film and Hollywood (with a woman's focus) overall.
I have also read her Creature from the Black Lagoon book. Both are good. Down-to-earth style, while quite detailed. Fun footnotes.
ETA: One interesting tidbit is how cliffhanger serials and other films attracted women viewers as escapes and an example of women having agency, including for lower class women.
A retro channel shows "Blondie" films (1940s; there was also a couple of television series based on the comic strip, plus a radio show) each Saturday morning. I talked about this over the years.
The 28 films are of mixed quality. For whatever reason, one film is not shown in the rotation (about a "haunted" house). Blondie Plays Cupid is a good one.
The film is effectively a series of vignettes. It starts with the Fourth of July coming up. Blondie is not a fan of Dagwood and Baby Dumpling's fireworks.
She wants to go somewhere quiet. How about her relatives in the country? Some home and office scenes (where a plan to trick Dagwood backfires; the coworker involved is played by someone else in later films) take place.
Then, an amusing scene on the train, with a familiar face (the grumpy railroad executive on Petticoat Junction; the actor was in lots of character roles). Fans of old shows and films will see other familiar faces throughout the series.
The busy film then shifts to the country, where a young Glenn Ford offers them a ride. That's where the title drop comes in -- he has fallen in love with the neighbor's daughter, but the father opposes the match. The justice of the peace gives an amusing performance.
More hijinks and things end (as they always do) happily. The film is well-paced and well-written, with the interrelated scenes fitting together nicely.
One amusing bit of the "I see what they did there" variety involves Baby Dumpling winding up in a haystack after a joyride. Something is poking him. Turns out to be a needle. In a haystack.
There is also a cute final joke. The last bit involves something that would be rather serious (painful burns) if we took it seriously. The Wikipedia page at the moment somewhat misleadingly notes how things wound up. They don't simply enjoy the end of their vacation peacefully in the country.
The films have various expected components, including the postman getting hit by Dagwood (the film has a twist, including him having a chance to get Dagwood back) during an early scene involving the family having breakfast. The smart aleck neighborhood kid usually gets involved somehow.
Dagwood bumbles a lot, which at some point is a bit tedious. There is also some stereotypical Blondie stuff, including a bit too many scenes of her being jealous or upset (often arising from some misunderstanding) for some reason. She is not as sexy looking as in the comic strip.
Blondie started as a flapper-type character, while Dagwood was a rich man's son who gave up his money out of love. The films skip that backstory.
The strips, at least when I read them much later, also had them being close friends with their neighbors. This film has Blondie talking to the wife on the phone. Most of the films, however, skip them, and one late film has the neighbors annoyed at Dagwood.
The family grows over the decade or so of the films. "Baby Dumpling" becomes Alexander. And, they have a daughter named Cookie. The boss is "J.C" Dithers, though he is replaced later in the series except for the last film. That is, Julius Caesar Dithers.
It released its March argument schedule, which includes April 1 (birthright citizenship). See also, some of the anti-BC briefs.
==
Today's Groundhog's Day and this is Black History Month. I briefly talk about that here with further links with more info.
==
I watched Ted Lasso (first five episodes) on DVD around five years after most people. It does have charms, especially such a positive lead, which we need in these times.
The two primary women (owner and girlfriend of a player) characters are well played. There are so many shows these days on so many platforms of which I see nearly none.
I was watching Brief Encounter (the original, not the horrible 1970s t.v. remake) again.
[BTW, I also watched the first season of Night Court. The DVD provided a commentary track for the first episode from the show's creator, who also separately talked about the show along with Harry Anderson. It also has its charms on the nice people front.]
The film is wonderful on multiple levels, including its cinematography and use of sound.
One thing that is so enjoyable is that the characters are such pleasant people. Their normalness is a large part of the point.
They are just two normal married people who strikingly fall in love with other people. They know that it is crazy and that there is no future in it. That doesn't change the reality.
That is the basic tragedy.
The film is mostly shown through the eyes of the woman. She is the sort of woman who is upset at herself when being annoyed at someone who is an annoying pest. Yes, they are being annoying, but it's sort of mean to have mean thoughts about that.
It's nice to remember that people deep down often are like the leads in the film. That includes the woman's husband, a nice guy who she loves, and who would be the one person she would talk about her experiences, except that it would hurt him so much.
Yes, it's winter, but NYC usually doesn't get this much snow. Also, it is colder than usual -- we don't usually have pre-20-degree weather. Of course, it is all variable, with forty-degree weather recently.
Sunday is a good day for it, since during the week it would cause a lot more people problems.
Easy Living is an amusing and overall well-paced screwball comedy starring Jean Arthur with a young Ray Milland (love doesn't mean saying you are "sorry") as her love interest.
I enjoy her in various films, though If You Can Only Cook was too mannered. Her career spanned from the silent era to limited roles on television.
She had to step aside after a few performances when she co-starred in the Supreme Court-themed play First Monday in October. I still don't know how she was not too old for the role. She was in her 70s. The role was for a much younger person (a young Jane Alexander stepped in to play the role).
[The Wikipedia entry says she stepped out because of a viral infection. I read in the past that stage fright was also a major concern; she suffered it over the years and overall was a very private person.]
Easy Living is also a dramatic film regarding an aging football star learning that he has a heart condition. Victor Mature (his real name) stars. Lucille Ball has a supporting role. She was quite good in a variety of dramatic roles.
A familiar face portrays a doctor who confirms the condition. "Jeff Donnell" (a woman; "Jeff" is a childhood nickname), who plays the pregnant wife of a friend on the team, looks familiar, but I don't see anything in her resume that looks familiar.
Overall, I liked this film too.
ETA: T11 Incomplete (title concerning the injury of her client) is not quite as good as that review says.
Still, I liked it. Karen Sillas, as the older home health aide who is struggling with personal demons and other problems, is excellent. The other actors are a mixed bag, but overall give good performances as a bunch of flawed people. It weighs a bunch of themes well.
The DVD box suggests a lesbian angle, which does exist, but there are multiple interlocking stories here. For instance, her son becomes more important as the film goes along. And, as with all good films, the supporting cast provides good touches. I wouldn't mind learning more about the daughter-in-law.
The First Eight: A Personal History of the Pioneering Black Congressmen Who Shaped A Nation by Jim Clyburn is pretty good. It concerns the first eight black South Carolina congressmen, written by the ninth.
The author was once a history teacher, so he has some skills in particular to write about the subject. The style is straightforward and generally easy to read. At times, it got a bit dull.
Among the first eight is Civil War hero Robert Smalls and Thomas Miller, who looked white, and appears to have been the grandson of a signer of the Declaration of Independence. The book helpfully places the eight into the context of the times.
===
I recall reading The Princess Bride a long time ago.
At least, I recall reading William Goldman talk about how (he takes this conceit quite far, including in later editions) the book is actually merely an abridgement of a much longer (nonfiction) work.
The death of Rob Reiner led me to re-watch the film and read the most recent edition (it has "the first chapter" of a sequel) of the book. The book is quick reading with multiple asides. I read the over four-hundred-page book in basically two days.
My edition had two anniversary introductions plus the intro to the main book. So, you read over fifty pages before getting to the main attraction.
The book is mostly like the movie. The book adds a few things about Buttercup's parents and a "zoo of death," but the film and movie mostly overlap.
It's enjoyable. I won't say it is GOAT material or anything. It is enjoyable.
I wish Buttercup had a more active role. She comes off as rather naive. As a satire of typical fairy tales, that somewhat makes sense, but still.
The book also reminds us that these aren't great people. The heroes, after all, are criminals. Westley becomes a pirate. Pirates do some bad things.
==
I listened to As You Wish, written by the actor who plays Westley. It is basically a 25th Anniversary era celebration of the film. The audio included many people involved in the film. That was charming.
I am not a big books on tape fan, especially for longer works. This book isn't that long. I didn't seek it out. I wanted the book, and the audiobook is what came up.
(I'm listening to Selma Blair read The Diary of Anne Frank. She does a good job. The diary is longer, and I don't know if I want to listen to the whole thing.)
The last disc was corrupted, so I could not finish listening to it. That was annoying.
===
I also read The L-Shaped Room, an old British book about a woman who moves into a seedy apartment after she gets pregnant. The first time she has sex.
It was okay. There was a certain artificial flavor to it, including how the main character never truly was at risk. For instance, her aunt eventually pays her to type a book, and then she makes money typing, allowing a means for her to make money after she is fired.
(The book was also at times somewhat tediously wordy. There were some interesting supporting characters, including a gay black musician and two prostitutes, each somewhat simplistically drawn.)
The link is to a film starring Leslie Caron (more familiar for such works as Gigi), which I saw a long time ago and wish to see again. Nonetheless, the only DVD I was able to find was the wrong format.
And, though TCM sometimes plays her films, they never air that one. Annoying. Checking the summary, the film changes the book somewhat, including explaining why a French actress is being used.
I don't generally listen to books, partially because it takes too long. The audio for this book, written by "Westley," in honor of The Princess Bride, including drops from many people involved, is worthwhile. The last disc annoyingly got too glitchy.
I Wish You All The Best, directed by a trans person, has received good reviews. A Bronx connection: she went to Fordham University. This is her directorial debut. She was an actor in 13 Reasons Why, another case where I only read the book.
I noticed Cole Sprouse had a supporting role as the protagonist's brother-in-law. I remember him as Ben, the son of Ross and Carol (a lesbian), on Friends. Now, he is in his 30s. Time flies.
“Non-binary” is an umbrella term that includes those whose identity falls outside of or between male and female identities; as a person who can experience both male and female, at different times, or someone who does not experience or want to have a gender identity at all.
The film concerns another Ben, who is kicked out after they come out as nonbinary to their parents. They moved in with their sister, who had left the family years earlier. Ben has a path of self-discovery, including a cute romance. The book is overall well-written.
Lena Dunham has a role in the film as an understanding art teacher. The character is Asian-American in the book. The film also, for some reason, also has the sister having a newborn. I don't see a Muslim nonbinary character listed, who plays an important role in the book as Ben's mentor.
Mild spoilers. In the book, things overall work out well for Ben. Their sister provides a safe haven. She and her husband have the resources to help them. It's convenient, for instance, that the brother-in-law is a teacher and helps Ben transfer to a new school.
They and their parents do not reconcile. They overall do not come out well at all, hints of backward religious beliefs. The mother comes off better. She feels sorry about the pain she is causing her children. But, ultimately, she is loyal to the father.
(I began using male pronouns for Ben when writing this piece. Even the hosts of Gay USA sometimes trip up with using preferred pronouns. It can be tricky.)
The book shows the value of therapy, the usage of anti-anxiety medication, and dealing with social anxiety. It also shows the essential nature of finding good support. Ben finds a support network that they did not have before, including in school.
Before, they didn't hang out with people. Finding someone who here helped Ben find two more close friends was oh so important. This is a general principle and not limited to people on the LGBTQ+ spectrum.
Attacking trans people is deemed acceptable by many governments, up to and including the Trump Administration. Transphobia is both understandable (as far as bigotry can be) and ridiculous.
Transphobia arises from different things. The Trump Administration being so anti-trans might confuse someone. It seems logical (if wrong) for them to target Democrats in illegitimate ways or monetize the government or demand utter loyalty to Dear Leader.
Why the anti-trans stuff? It does have a right-wing religious angle. It is fitting that the Religion Clause Blog often has news on trans-related lawsuits. Sex and gender flexibility clash with right-wing religious beliefs. Not "Christian" beliefs. To be clear.
Such beliefs do not only have a religious angle. People can be religious and support nonbinary and trans people. Religious positions often have more to them.
Gender fluidity endangers traditional masculine-dominant beliefs and practices. Fascism and authoritarian governments regularly promote such beliefs. It is fitting that one book about them is entitled Strongmen. Anti-trans policies fit in here.
A book (written by a non-binary person) and a film (directed by a trans person) respecting the self-actualization of a binary person are quite important. We need to be good people and provide support for those in need. We need to not focus on false issues.
A final word about young adult non-fiction. It is often not only for young adults. After all, people enjoy television shows and films about teenagers without being teenagers themselves. YA fiction can be similar.
This 2015 film is based on true events involving an indigenous tribe (and a star-crossed romance) on a Pacific island. The actors are amateurs but quite good. It often has a documentary-like feel.
This film was released in late 1943 and early 1944, based on a late 1942 play. The sacrifices of the women nurses have added bite mid-WWII. Some reviews suggest it is too stagy. Overall, I was impressed. As we feel sorry for ourselves, a bit of historical memory, please.
Rachel McAdams was in two films where she was a "time traveler's wife." This one is British and quirky. The time travel is largely used to fix social slip-ups. It was pleasant enough, and the two hours passed quickly. Still, it was a tad too cutesy. And, the time travel at times seemed a tad bit "cheat-y." And, the rules a bit sketchy.
James Garner, in his autobiography, didn't rank this very highly, though he said he enjoyed working with a young Jodie Foster. One movie book gave it 2.5/4 stars and called it quirky. I think that's fair. I overall enjoyed it. Decent pace and some good performances.
I saw a reference to James Garner's autobiography when reading about They Only Kill Their Masters. He ranked his films and gave it two stars. He didn't want to talk about the film otherwise. So mysterious!
The book is overall pretty good. He wrote it with someone a few years before his death.
I can do without chapters on golf and racing, but they are two of his passions. An "outtakes" section provides various stories from family, friends, and others. He talks about his childhood without talking much about his wife and daughters (very little, though they pop up in the outtakes section).
Garner (originally Bumgarner) references that his cousin once told him that his mother died from complications of an abortion. She was twenty-six and had three young boys in Depression Era Oklahoma.
(It was just referenced in a discussion about his childhood. He later says he supports abortion rights and is a strong Democrat.)
Julia Sweeney, in an otherwise light-hearted book on parenthood, talked about how her mother-in-law got an illegal abortion in the 1960s. Sweeney did some good long-form monologues, including her first, "God Said, Ha!" A later one was basically "God? Ha!"
You can hear Garner's telltale voice while reading the book. His characters often had much of him in them. He did not train to be an actor. He got work early on because he had a movie star look. Garner got married in around two weeks. It worked for him -- they stayed together for nearly sixty years.
I was not a big fan of his private eye television show, though I know people who liked it. I wanted to check out Maverick, his 1950s show, and saw it was on. It turns out to have been a late episode with Roger Moore, who replaced him!
I like James Garner overall as an actor, including in Murphy's Romance. I did not see that many of his movies. I checked out the first of his Western spoofs. Didn't much care for it. His one-season television show, Nichols, was playing on one of the retro stations. Think he would appreciate that.
(I agree with him that The Notebook is very good.)
I had difficulty finding a good book lately. The latest by Erik Loomis (Organizing America) with twenty thumbnail biographies was pretty interesting.
This one was a good, easy read, though again was not really interested in forty pages about golf and racing. And would have liked to read a bit more about his daughters. Overall, he had a good no-nonsense philosophy mixed with empathy. Good values.
He gives some opinions, good and bad, about some actors and other people he knew. Nothing too terrible, but he does criticize a few celebrities.
Garner also said that he was a long-term user of marijuana, finding it helpful for medicinal purposes. If anything, alcohol was more dangerous in his experience. He tried cocaine via Jim Belushi but didn't care for it. Not too many big reveals overall.
Good group of character actors. Seriously. The film is almost like a Murder She Wrote episode regarding the number of classic film actors in supporting roles.
Garner (in his autobiography) once ranked his films. This received 2/5, but he didn't want to talk about it. That is likely to lead people to wonder why.
I would probably rank it 3/5 on that scale for the cast, setting, and the plot for much of the film. It was an enjoyable, deliberate mystery taking part in a small town. It was a very good role for James Garner.
[The film does go in an annoying direction, so I might give it 2.5. OTOH, lots of 3/5 films have flaws. That sort of film is decent, taking everything into consideration. So, the bad stuff is averaged in.]
The film, in a limited fashion, involves bisexuality/lesbianism, which is put in a bad light given the plot. Some people will be a bit shocked at who the killer turns out to be. At least given who plays the role. Garner's character, at one point, out of nowhere (really), references not being a "faggot" for some reason. I was a bit taken aback.
Anyway, the film was enjoyably moseying along [I was watching it late at night], and then it hit into stupid plot point territory. Garner's character not only made a misguided assumption (or three) but also did something dangerously stupid.
It ruined things for me, and I shut it off. I checked Wikipedia to see what happened. The solution to the mystery was unpleasant and somewhat lame. Plus, there is the "small town has a dark side" flavor there. Finally, how many seems fine but has a creepy side roles has Hal Holbrook done?
We also have another case of the gratuitous shooting of a guilty party. Television and film don't need the death penalty with all the people being shot dead.
So, I enjoyed the movie until I didn't. James Garner was overall very good. Not sure why he didn't want to talk about it. Probably something personal, including conflict with a cast member or the like.
There is a "title drop" (involving a dog) early in the film. As noted in Wikipedia, there were multiple (failed) attempts to use the general concept as the basis of a series (using different actors). I can see it.
A Hallmark Hall of Fame film from 2012 with Julia Stiles and Camryn Manheim (supporting role). Stiles plays uptight well. Good cast. Overall, enjoyable, with a bit of a twist near the end.
I like the show Friends and have seen episodes over and over again. I generally skip the first and tenth seasons, though there are a few episodes from those seasons that are fine. It is comfortable food television, even with all its issues.
For instance, Rachel gets pregnant and suddenly becomes conservative. Well, romantically and sexually. This is someone who has sex on first dates. Now, when she gets horny mid-way (before she is showing), she can't REALLY have sex with anyone? She is appalled at the idea when Phoebe brings a virgin guy to have sex with her.
Rachel goes on a date early in the pregnancy and feels compelled to tell the guy. This, obviously, ruins the whole thing. Why is she obliged to do this on a first date? I can go on, but this sort of thing bothers me.
I saw two shortened porn clips involving a Friends parody on Pornhub. One involves the women, the other Monica/Rachel, and Joey. The characters don't really look the part, but they do a decent job of it. Chandler/Joey gave the big apartment back for just a minute of Monica/Rachel kissing. Imagine if they could see all three having sex?
(There was that episode when they had free porn. Note the film discussed below also has a scene with the three women, though that one has a guy too.)
There are many full-length parodies of many different films and television shows. There obviously would be one of Friends. The video provides basically the film without the porn. So, it is under twenty minutes long.
You can read a Vulture review, get a summary of the sex scenes, and a Wikipedia summary (you can translate it). There is also a way to get a free preview (about a minute) of the film. Also, yes, I can see the porn actor (in a bunch of things) who they picked to play Ugly Naked Guy. He works.
The summary makes a comment that the film does a decent job, but does not provide much of a fantasy experience keyed to the show itself. The characters (with their clothes on) are reasonably comparable to the original, but the sex scenes often are just that. They are not that character-specific.
For instance, the Chandler and Monica characters ("Monica" dressed looks decently like the original) have sex. Basically, like any two people would have sex. The Monica character has a lot of tattoo art, apparently, which is a thing these days. Not a fan. Anyway, that sort of ruins the fantasy.
The film was made long after "doing a Monica" would be a topical reference. Monica here does do that, though her porn name is more about her moaning. She did some moaning on the show when Phoebe gave her a massage. On the show, there is a Mona, who is pretty cute.
The show was not political, though it made a few references to Bill Clinton. They couldn't make one reference to her being named Monica? In the 1990s?
The film clip (again, it's PG) shows the two apartments and the coffeehouse (given a stupid LA name here). They do a pretty good job with the apartments. For some reason, however, they put a big window in the main area of the guy's apartment. No idea why from watching the film clip.
Okay, just to toss it in, Ross gets to have a threesome with Carol/Susan (or whatever they call her), and this time [unlike on the series] he has fun. Joey has sex with Ross/Monica's mom (more of a MILF here). And, the foursome with the women and Ugly Naked Guy (not too ugly here) goes a long time.
Those are decent choices, though I think many fans have different possibilities in mind. For instance, when they all find out Monica/Chandler was dating, there was an amusing bit where Chandler and Phoebe played a game of chicken regarding faking liking each other. What if they actually had sex?
IRL, Matthew Perry said in his autobiography that he had a crush (not returned) on Jennifer Aniston. Those two characters having sex would be ... strange. But, they did kiss (college flashback), and Rachel (before she got married) thought about having sex with him!
One thing I didn't like about the series was that after Chandler/Janice broke up (after a charming subplot where Chandler truly fell for her), they just kept on having the same plot of Chandler being disgusted by her. There are two serious exceptions, but that is generally the nature of her once-a-season experiences from then on. Why can't he move on and remember the good times? Maybe in the final appearance?
Is there a fan fiction where Chandler and Janice hook up again, perhaps when Chandler and Monica have some marriage problems? After all, Janice even tells him to call her in that episode after he's engaged and all three have dinner with each other.
Janice would be a good character in a porn -- her "OMG" would fit well in the bedroom. After all, Joey in one episode says she is loud. Oh. On the show, she hooks up with Ross. A Joey/Chandler/Janice threesome (to show Joey is okay with her!) would be a possible scene. More can be imagined.
Ross got in trouble saying Rachel's name at his second wedding. Maybe he can turn things around and say Emily's name in the bedroom with Rachel? On the show, there actually is a video of Ross/Rachel having sex, which they watch. Maybe we can see that?
The show has various other risque opportunities for sex scenes. Monica, in an early episode, has sex with a teenager (IRL, he was in his 20s). Phoebe's half-brother marries his much older teacher (on the show, they keep on making out). Phoebe's twin sister in one episode even starts making amateur porn using her name! Why not have Phoebe fill in one time?!
Oh well, if we are talking about fantasy, I would change various things, including ending the series about a season earlier. But this has gone on long enough. The one where Joey tells Rachel he fell in love with her is airing now. If only they didn't go ahead and have Rachel fall for him later. Blah.
Heavily pregnant Rachel having sex ... some people like pregnancy porn. And, come on, Rachel not having sex her full pregnancy is just silly.
