The Crown and Opposable Thumbs

My limit for Christmas season is Epiphany (1/6), which is also Greek Orthodox Christmas. Still, it seems the height of the season is over. Stores are moving on to Valentine's Day. And Hallmark Channel is again ending their films to play Golden Girls reruns around 10 P.M.

A staple of Hallmark Channel type films are royal romances. As a Danish royal (who knew they had them?) retires before dying, one summary provides information about the around twenty-five royal families worldwide. Some still have some power. The list seems to leave off many Hallmark, Up TV, and Great American Family monarchs.  

I also finished Season Three of The Crown, which already is heavy on the Charles. It even skipped a skipped dramatic kidnapping attempt of Princess Anne (she had some scenes; the young actress is very good) since it was not dramatically in the flow of the Charles heavy season.

The season took time to focus on other things. One plotline involving a coal strike did not even have a resolution. Seems like a kidnapping attempt could have been included. It didn't have to be a whole episode. It still seems strange such a dramatic moment was skipped. BTW, Prime Minister Wilson is a favorite of mine based on his portrayal in this series.)

The third season was somewhat more restrained than the first two (perhaps the middle-aged queen has a bit less sex appeal?). Still, overall, I think it provided good dramatic entertainment. We should be aware that this is not a documentary. The events are based on true history with some dramatic license. Afterall, much of the material is behind the scenes stuff that is a result of creative imagination. Be wary of "true history" dramas. 

===

Opposable Thumbs: How Siskel & Ebert Changed Movies Forever by Matt Singer is a friendly biography. It is not an "official biography" though it is hard to see what their families would find upsetting about it. This is not really a criticism. The two film critics have no apparent dark side (other than egos) that warranted exposure or something. 

I enjoyed their show. I was too young to seek it out when it first came out. The usage of an actual dog to show the "dog" of the week was before the time I started to watch. I recall Siskel being a bit fussy about the "proper" films at times. He would sometimes like something not likely to be too popular. I have long enjoyed reading reviews, particularly film reviews.

[YouTube allows you to watch some more videos. I found, for instance, their critical review of The First Monday In October, the Walter Matthau / Jill Clayburgh film version of the play about the first female justice. They were not impressed. The film isn't that good. My enjoyment level lies with the subject matter and Walter Matthau's performance.]  

Various things led me to stop going to see films on a weekly basis some time back, particularly after Roger Ebert died, though the two things are not connected (of course). The alternatives online and television also changed the dynamic. I still think the movie theater experience has a special charm. It is a shame on some level so many theaters I went to over the years (including the Whitestone Multiplex Cinema) closed down.

Matt Singer's book is enjoyable. We get enough about their background and behind the scenes stuff to get a feel of knowing them.  It is not a complete history of them both. Gene Siskel getting married is noted in passing. A brief look at film reviewing to me skipped over some pre-1960s events. I have looked up online old-time reviews of films before then. Don't expect too much in depth looks into film reviewing as a craft either.  

Quibbles aside (including taking a bit too long to wrap up), it was a nice brisk read. Fans of duo and the show should enjoy it.