Though released in 1936, the technical quality of this cartoon is like something from half-a-dozen or more years earlier. The drawing is very simple, and sequences of frames are repeated multiple times though the entire cartoon (including credits-and-all-that) is just two minutes and 39 seconds long. The Lone Ranger looks like a generic cartoon cowboy. What little dialogue this cartoon has is communicated with inter-titles; the soundtrack is just music, mostly the William Tell Overture. The catch phrase "heigh-o" is misspelled as "hiegh-o". Very little story is told, and details are elided even still.
Reviews
60 Reviews
The Limping Man
(1953)
Complexities and Scandal Resolved by the Cheapest of Story-Telling Tricks
26 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Whoever is responsible for the story that told by this film simply didn't know of a reasonable way to pull it together, and so just let it fall apart.
After an unexplained separation of six years, an American flies to the UK to meet the woman whom he loves, an actress of some fame. As he and the other passengers walk from the plane to a terminal building, a man whom he stops by chance is felled by a sniper's bullet. The sniper walked with the assistance of a crutch. It is discovered that the woman whom the American has come to see had been both sexually involved and engaged in smuggling with the man identified as the victim of the sniper; apparently she was motivated to do these things because of her longing for the American. Further, her lover had subsequently blackmailed her, and now his presumptive widow, a singer, was blackmailing her. On the way, we discover that someone with an administrative rôle at the singer's theater uses a crutch. When the actress attempts to pay the singer, the actress and the audience learn that the presumptive dead man is still alive, and being assisted by his wife. The fellow with the crutch makes an appearance and is greatly injured by the blackmailer. The police, who have been going about the business of trying to solve the murder and trying to run the actress to ground show-up. A search for the blackmailer is begun; he has for no very good reason disguised himself as the fellow with the crutch, and when the police begin looking for a man with a crutch, it does not occur to him to chuck the thing aside; instead, he retreats to a balcony. When he is spotted, the America dashes after him, instead of allowing the surrounding police to do their job. A struggle ensues, with the American finding himself to be pushed off the balcony.
Were the film to break at this point, the audience would be left with many questions. Answering even just some of them in a satisfactory manner would be quite a challenge.
Well, the American awakes, because it was all a dream. That was the best answer that the writers had for us. (Formally, the ending has the disembarked American and the actress happily running each towards the other, perhaps to assure us that he hasn't dreamt exactly the future he were about to enter.) If, up to that point of awakening, the story had been, in some interesting way, dream-like, then that ending might be sensible or at least forgivable. But the story had been a haphazard construction of implausibilities, and the ending was simply a cheat.
After an unexplained separation of six years, an American flies to the UK to meet the woman whom he loves, an actress of some fame. As he and the other passengers walk from the plane to a terminal building, a man whom he stops by chance is felled by a sniper's bullet. The sniper walked with the assistance of a crutch. It is discovered that the woman whom the American has come to see had been both sexually involved and engaged in smuggling with the man identified as the victim of the sniper; apparently she was motivated to do these things because of her longing for the American. Further, her lover had subsequently blackmailed her, and now his presumptive widow, a singer, was blackmailing her. On the way, we discover that someone with an administrative rôle at the singer's theater uses a crutch. When the actress attempts to pay the singer, the actress and the audience learn that the presumptive dead man is still alive, and being assisted by his wife. The fellow with the crutch makes an appearance and is greatly injured by the blackmailer. The police, who have been going about the business of trying to solve the murder and trying to run the actress to ground show-up. A search for the blackmailer is begun; he has for no very good reason disguised himself as the fellow with the crutch, and when the police begin looking for a man with a crutch, it does not occur to him to chuck the thing aside; instead, he retreats to a balcony. When he is spotted, the America dashes after him, instead of allowing the surrounding police to do their job. A struggle ensues, with the American finding himself to be pushed off the balcony.
Were the film to break at this point, the audience would be left with many questions. Answering even just some of them in a satisfactory manner would be quite a challenge.
Well, the American awakes, because it was all a dream. That was the best answer that the writers had for us. (Formally, the ending has the disembarked American and the actress happily running each towards the other, perhaps to assure us that he hasn't dreamt exactly the future he were about to enter.) If, up to that point of awakening, the story had been, in some interesting way, dream-like, then that ending might be sensible or at least forgivable. But the story had been a haphazard construction of implausibilities, and the ending was simply a cheat.
Night of Terror
(1933)
Not Awful, but Still Awfully Weak
26 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This film has a weak story built on two gimmicks. (There are additional gimmicks to the film, but I count two to the story as such.) The first is a sort of locked-room aspect to the murder mystery, with the topology turned inside-out. The second is hiding of one string of murders,by one perpetrator, within another string of murders by another perpetrator.
But these two gimmicks are not themselves an hour's worth of story, and the story here built around them is not simply weak but incoherent.
Now, I would here insert that I don't know that WIlliam Mack, given the story credit here, actually produced this story. He might have produced a very fine story, only to have it mauled by Columbia into the story used for this film.
In any case, on top of the weak story was built a weak script. For example, it is ultimately revealed that the first victim of the second murderer was killed because of his suspicions towards about another person, but his actions concerning a third person are quite inconsonant with those suspicious. An effort is made to cast narrative suspicion on another character by having him express himself in implausible ways. A romantic triangle is sustained only by having the female lead repeatedly cheat on her fiancé. And some ostensible comedy is provided by having the one black character be inept, cowardly, and superstitious.
Much of the acting in this film is actually quite good, in spite of the poor script. The clear exceptions would be the performance of Edwin Maxwell (which was like something out of a Dwain Esper production, and possibly exactly what the director asked of Maxwell), that of Lugosi (who seems to be just walking through the material), and that of Oscar Smith (who wasn't getting screen credit anyway, in spite of doing more than some of the actors who were).
But these two gimmicks are not themselves an hour's worth of story, and the story here built around them is not simply weak but incoherent.
Now, I would here insert that I don't know that WIlliam Mack, given the story credit here, actually produced this story. He might have produced a very fine story, only to have it mauled by Columbia into the story used for this film.
In any case, on top of the weak story was built a weak script. For example, it is ultimately revealed that the first victim of the second murderer was killed because of his suspicions towards about another person, but his actions concerning a third person are quite inconsonant with those suspicious. An effort is made to cast narrative suspicion on another character by having him express himself in implausible ways. A romantic triangle is sustained only by having the female lead repeatedly cheat on her fiancé. And some ostensible comedy is provided by having the one black character be inept, cowardly, and superstitious.
Much of the acting in this film is actually quite good, in spite of the poor script. The clear exceptions would be the performance of Edwin Maxwell (which was like something out of a Dwain Esper production, and possibly exactly what the director asked of Maxwell), that of Lugosi (who seems to be just walking through the material), and that of Oscar Smith (who wasn't getting screen credit anyway, in spite of doing more than some of the actors who were).
Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension
(2011 TV Movie)
Somewhat Darker and More Serious
6 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This 77-minute adventure is more like an animated action film with jokes and songs than like a longer episode of the television series.
A typical episode to P&F entails a three-way collision of the child-like genius of Phineas and Ferb, of the childish genius of Heinz Dofenschmirtz, and of the just-plain childishness of Candace Flynn. Phineas and Ferb have great fun, Doofenschmirtz is hoisted on his own petard, Candace is thwarted, and the only one who has any clue as to what has really happened is, well, a platypus.
But this time there's a different three-way collision, and the result is that Phineas and Ferb, oblivious to the sort of fellow that Doofenschmirtz is, help him to create a portal into a parallel universe. Not that big of a deal, perhaps, except that in that next universe, there is a Doofenschmirtz who is more genuinely evil, and with greater practical sense than the familiar Doof. This Doofenschmirtz has conquered his Tri-State Area, and imposed a totalitarian regime, with violent robotic enforcers. This alternate Tri-State Area has its comedic touches; but, for the most part, it isn't written for laughs.
Ultimately, an alliance is formed that draws together Perry, children of two worlds, and finally even the familiar Heinz Doofenschmirtz, to stop a man who has crushed one land and seeks to crush another. In the course of things, various people and at least one aquatic mammal learn what they have really meant one to another.
(And the viewer might also see what some of the characters have come to mean to the writers.)
As an action film for kids, this is pretty well written, Whoever did the story-boards had a very solid understanding of the What, Where, and When of an action film. Even when one knows what is about to be delivered, the delivery is usually very satisfying. There are some coherence issues here and there, but nothing really dreadful; and they would have been hard to resolve without making this film far too strong for some of its intended audience.
A typical episode to P&F entails a three-way collision of the child-like genius of Phineas and Ferb, of the childish genius of Heinz Dofenschmirtz, and of the just-plain childishness of Candace Flynn. Phineas and Ferb have great fun, Doofenschmirtz is hoisted on his own petard, Candace is thwarted, and the only one who has any clue as to what has really happened is, well, a platypus.
But this time there's a different three-way collision, and the result is that Phineas and Ferb, oblivious to the sort of fellow that Doofenschmirtz is, help him to create a portal into a parallel universe. Not that big of a deal, perhaps, except that in that next universe, there is a Doofenschmirtz who is more genuinely evil, and with greater practical sense than the familiar Doof. This Doofenschmirtz has conquered his Tri-State Area, and imposed a totalitarian regime, with violent robotic enforcers. This alternate Tri-State Area has its comedic touches; but, for the most part, it isn't written for laughs.
Ultimately, an alliance is formed that draws together Perry, children of two worlds, and finally even the familiar Heinz Doofenschmirtz, to stop a man who has crushed one land and seeks to crush another. In the course of things, various people and at least one aquatic mammal learn what they have really meant one to another.
(And the viewer might also see what some of the characters have come to mean to the writers.)
As an action film for kids, this is pretty well written, Whoever did the story-boards had a very solid understanding of the What, Where, and When of an action film. Even when one knows what is about to be delivered, the delivery is usually very satisfying. There are some coherence issues here and there, but nothing really dreadful; and they would have been hard to resolve without making this film far too strong for some of its intended audience.
The Vampires Night Orgy
(1973)
Dull, Uninventive, often Incoherent
18 February 2009
This film is built around the device of a group of people diverted (accidentally or deliberately) to some isolating location, where they find themselves hosted by a party whom they at least initially take to be beneficient but who prove to be a spider or spiders.
Well, that device has been exploited many times. Many times, the web has been a small town or village. Many times, the spiders have been vampires. So, what does this movie do that's different? Nothing much, and what it does often incoherent.
Some summaries tell us that the people of the village are all vampires, and yet there seems to be a class of indigenous victim, three of whom are injured in the movie. We get no explanation of who these victims are.
Other than the vampires, there's another supernatural entity, who functions as a lemur ex machina, with little rhyme or reason for his behavior.
One of the visitors dies other than at the hands of a vampire, and when a vampire finds that character's body partially buried for no particular reason, hauls it out of its grave for no particular reason.
The climactic battle is almost perfectly unconvincing.
BTW, the apparent protagonist is a creep who spies on a woman as she undresses.
Well, that device has been exploited many times. Many times, the web has been a small town or village. Many times, the spiders have been vampires. So, what does this movie do that's different? Nothing much, and what it does often incoherent.
Some summaries tell us that the people of the village are all vampires, and yet there seems to be a class of indigenous victim, three of whom are injured in the movie. We get no explanation of who these victims are.
Other than the vampires, there's another supernatural entity, who functions as a lemur ex machina, with little rhyme or reason for his behavior.
One of the visitors dies other than at the hands of a vampire, and when a vampire finds that character's body partially buried for no particular reason, hauls it out of its grave for no particular reason.
The climactic battle is almost perfectly unconvincing.
BTW, the apparent protagonist is a creep who spies on a woman as she undresses.
Mr. Wong, Detective
(1938)
Mr. Wong, Accessory to Murder
29 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The basic gimmick to this movie is clever. Mr Wong, on the other hand, either isn't clever or is a sort of passive-aggressive fiend, who delights in murder.
Before the second murder has occurred, Wong has the gist of how the first murder was effected. And, as the second murder is about to be committed, Mr Wong is positioned to know what the triggering mechanism is. So I'm shouting "Kick the door! Kick the door! Kick the door!" But Wong is just standing there. Perhaps he's not figured it out.
After the second murder, Wong is positioned to know exactly what the trigger is. But Wong allows a third murder to happen.
Well, I submit that Mr Wong does know; that, as the third murder is committed, the buzzard is sitting next to Street, giggling inside, as Street unwittingly kills the third fellow.
Wong doesn't bother to expose the murderer until the murderer has little cause to kill again. Unfortunately for the killer, Wong figures that he can get one more death out of the situation, by sending the killer to the gallows.
Wait! Why was Street sending people to the gallows in 1938? California switched to gas for people convicted after 27 August 1937. (Lethal injection was introduced in the '90s.)
Before the second murder has occurred, Wong has the gist of how the first murder was effected. And, as the second murder is about to be committed, Mr Wong is positioned to know what the triggering mechanism is. So I'm shouting "Kick the door! Kick the door! Kick the door!" But Wong is just standing there. Perhaps he's not figured it out.
After the second murder, Wong is positioned to know exactly what the trigger is. But Wong allows a third murder to happen.
Well, I submit that Mr Wong does know; that, as the third murder is committed, the buzzard is sitting next to Street, giggling inside, as Street unwittingly kills the third fellow.
Wong doesn't bother to expose the murderer until the murderer has little cause to kill again. Unfortunately for the killer, Wong figures that he can get one more death out of the situation, by sending the killer to the gallows.
Wait! Why was Street sending people to the gallows in 1938? California switched to gas for people convicted after 27 August 1937. (Lethal injection was introduced in the '90s.)
The Bat
(1959)
Harder to Excuse
21 December 2008
If this film is worth watching at all, it is only in some act of compleatism.
Both the 1926 and 1959 films are constructed rather haphazardly. But, in 1926, movie-makers were still struggling to discover the basics, whereas in 1959 cinema was a relatively mature medium, and 1959 version could look back on two prior productions (not counting The Circular Staircase, 1915 and 1956). One infers that the 1959 version was made in haste, with a low budget, and perhaps with a lack of concern.
The screenplay itself is pedestrian. At one or more point, each of the characters does something unnatural because Wilbur (who wrote the screenplay and directed the film) did not find a way to advance the story naturally.
The sets, lighting, camera angles, and music give this movie the feel of a television production of that same era. For example, when there is meaningful use of shadow, it is only to produce simple silhouettes. (I don't know how the actual television production, from a little less than a year later, compares to this movie.)
This film has apparently been allowed to slip into the public domain. My suggestion is that, before one spends even the small sum charged by a publisher like Alpha Video, one should down-load a copy from the 'Net and watch that. If one disagrees with my assessment, then he or she will still be free to buy a higher quality copy for future viewing.
Both the 1926 and 1959 films are constructed rather haphazardly. But, in 1926, movie-makers were still struggling to discover the basics, whereas in 1959 cinema was a relatively mature medium, and 1959 version could look back on two prior productions (not counting The Circular Staircase, 1915 and 1956). One infers that the 1959 version was made in haste, with a low budget, and perhaps with a lack of concern.
The screenplay itself is pedestrian. At one or more point, each of the characters does something unnatural because Wilbur (who wrote the screenplay and directed the film) did not find a way to advance the story naturally.
The sets, lighting, camera angles, and music give this movie the feel of a television production of that same era. For example, when there is meaningful use of shadow, it is only to produce simple silhouettes. (I don't know how the actual television production, from a little less than a year later, compares to this movie.)
This film has apparently been allowed to slip into the public domain. My suggestion is that, before one spends even the small sum charged by a publisher like Alpha Video, one should down-load a copy from the 'Net and watch that. If one disagrees with my assessment, then he or she will still be free to buy a higher quality copy for future viewing.
The World Gone Mad
(1933)
Good General Idea, but Slap-Dash Execution
9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The general idea of this film is a good one: In the run-up to the Great Depression and stock market crash, and then in their throes and wake, high-level executives have been cutting corners and cooking the books at a financial firm, first trying to get rich and then trying to hide their titanic losses. A city district attorney gets wind of the fraud, and is murdered to halt his investigation. The murder is made to look like the work of a jealous mistress, bringing scandal upon his name. But the new district attorney and a journalist who is his close friend don't believe the conclusions of the police, and set-out to uncover the truth.
But the execution is very poor. This story is full of holes, of pieces that don't really fit, of loose ends.
The story hangs upon people being even less communicative than the typical lack-wits of real-life. For example, this district attorney has basically told no one, in his office or amongst his confidantes, which firm he has been investigating. Eventually a scrap of paper turns-up amongst his effects; but beyond that he seems to have kept no records beyond whatever he might have carried on his person when he was killed.
An initial scene shows a process of repeatedly subcontracting a crime through a series of middle-men, each passing on the job for half of what he receives, so that the immediate perpetrator receives on 5% of the initial payment. Yet it is a sudden and completely unexplained short-circuiting of that intermediation which allows the journalist to develop an idea of who would be the immediate perpetrator. Since the fellow who originally took the assignment gets few of the benefits of intermediation, he might as well have pocketted its cost.
The journalist, in any case, collects sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the immediate perpetrator. But he doesn't give the evidence or information to his friend the new district attorney. (Perhaps by way of an explanation, the journalist does make the insulting insinuation that the new district attorney might participate in the cover-up for personal profit, but the journalist could have talked to the police as well.) Instead, the journalist kidnaps the perpetrator. It's not clear where and how the journalist keeps the fellow.
With the perpetrator removed, the journalist then continues his investigation, and basically learns nothing more. The story is just spinning its wheels as far as he is concerned. The district attorney, in the mean-time, gets a couple of notes-ex-machina, without which his investigation is utterly inert.
Finally, we learn that the some of the killers have been stringing the journalist along, to find out what he knows. Amongst them are the fellow whom he kidnapped, who has escaped as mysteriously as he was being held. Under threat of death, the journalist is persuaded to summon the district attorney, so that the killers can dispatch them both. But the district attorney becomes conveniently suspicious of behavior for which an innocent explanation could easily be produced, and the day is saved.
Meanwhile, the highest official of the financial firm has learned of the fraud, and commits a murder-suicide so that insurance can repay the missing funds. Too bad for the investors in the insurance firm, but apparently: policies for many millions of dollars were written on the lives of just two executives; the insurer didn't grasp the problem of moral hazard, and write the policies to exclude payment in the event of suicide; and the insurer is sufficiently solvent to make a huge payment, even while the rest of the financial structure seems to be in crisis.
The wife of the previous, murdered district attorney is ecstatic that her husbands name has been cleared. Perhaps she looks forward to telling him about it when he gets home.
BTW: This movie is amongst those that perpetrate the notion that "blanks can't hurt you", which notion killed Jon-Erik Hexum. And what Vanderbilt said in full was "The public be damned! I'm working for my stockholders."
But the execution is very poor. This story is full of holes, of pieces that don't really fit, of loose ends.
The story hangs upon people being even less communicative than the typical lack-wits of real-life. For example, this district attorney has basically told no one, in his office or amongst his confidantes, which firm he has been investigating. Eventually a scrap of paper turns-up amongst his effects; but beyond that he seems to have kept no records beyond whatever he might have carried on his person when he was killed.
An initial scene shows a process of repeatedly subcontracting a crime through a series of middle-men, each passing on the job for half of what he receives, so that the immediate perpetrator receives on 5% of the initial payment. Yet it is a sudden and completely unexplained short-circuiting of that intermediation which allows the journalist to develop an idea of who would be the immediate perpetrator. Since the fellow who originally took the assignment gets few of the benefits of intermediation, he might as well have pocketted its cost.
The journalist, in any case, collects sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the immediate perpetrator. But he doesn't give the evidence or information to his friend the new district attorney. (Perhaps by way of an explanation, the journalist does make the insulting insinuation that the new district attorney might participate in the cover-up for personal profit, but the journalist could have talked to the police as well.) Instead, the journalist kidnaps the perpetrator. It's not clear where and how the journalist keeps the fellow.
With the perpetrator removed, the journalist then continues his investigation, and basically learns nothing more. The story is just spinning its wheels as far as he is concerned. The district attorney, in the mean-time, gets a couple of notes-ex-machina, without which his investigation is utterly inert.
Finally, we learn that the some of the killers have been stringing the journalist along, to find out what he knows. Amongst them are the fellow whom he kidnapped, who has escaped as mysteriously as he was being held. Under threat of death, the journalist is persuaded to summon the district attorney, so that the killers can dispatch them both. But the district attorney becomes conveniently suspicious of behavior for which an innocent explanation could easily be produced, and the day is saved.
Meanwhile, the highest official of the financial firm has learned of the fraud, and commits a murder-suicide so that insurance can repay the missing funds. Too bad for the investors in the insurance firm, but apparently: policies for many millions of dollars were written on the lives of just two executives; the insurer didn't grasp the problem of moral hazard, and write the policies to exclude payment in the event of suicide; and the insurer is sufficiently solvent to make a huge payment, even while the rest of the financial structure seems to be in crisis.
The wife of the previous, murdered district attorney is ecstatic that her husbands name has been cleared. Perhaps she looks forward to telling him about it when he gets home.
BTW: This movie is amongst those that perpetrate the notion that "blanks can't hurt you", which notion killed Jon-Erik Hexum. And what Vanderbilt said in full was "The public be damned! I'm working for my stockholders."
The Gay Parisian
(1941)
Lots of Energy, No Coherence
17 March 2008
There's considerable color, lots of energy, and the grins of the dancers tell us that we are supposed to think that this production is absolutely delightful. But the choreographer and dancers don't display sufficient technical virtuosity to off-set the almost complete lack of an actual story here. Imagine a second- or third-rate '40s musical, eliminate the singing, and replace the movie make-up with that appropriate to live theater, and you'll have a rough idea of what this film is like. Danny Kaye would have been expected to move with more precision than does Leonide Massine; the nameless dancers for MGM would have been expected to be better synchronized than are the Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo. While I'm sure that, with a run-time of 20 minutes, a more tiring film *could* be made, I'm not sure than one *has* been made.
The Mysterious Mr. Wong
(1934)
Who Is Responsible for This?
22 December 2007
I'm not sure whom of five people to hate: the director? one or more of the people given the writing credits? In any event, this is one of those movies that fairly actively insults the viewer by having the ostensible hero repeatedly be implausibly foolish -- as if drunk through-out the entire story. On top of this, the movie is awash with offensive ethnic stereotypes, and with obviously Caucasian actors pretending to be Chinese by looking filthy and acting sub-human. The Chinatown is made to seem as if it were literally over-run with villains, so that Wong's henchmen are to be found on every balcony and in most doorways. The banter between the hero and his love interest is not so much a volley of witticisms as it is an inept logomachy.
I paused the movie repeatedly, wanting to recover from sequences of stupidity before slogging onward.
I paused the movie repeatedly, wanting to recover from sequences of stupidity before slogging onward.
One Year Later
(1933)
A Forgotten Classic
17 August 2007
This film starts somewhat inauspiciously, but develops into something well worth watching.
The core story of One Year Later is that of Molly, a young woman desperate to reconcile with her husband before she loses him finally and terribly to the electric chair. Jim is to die for killing his former boss, the man with whom Jim thought his wife to have been having an affair. Sure that Molly was unfaithful, Jim will not so much as listen to her. Jim has been made to board a train headed to the prison in which he is to die. Molly has got a berth on the same train, trying as she might to talk to Jim.
Also riding towards death is Tony, a reporter dying of lung disease. Tony knows something of Jim and Molly's story, and wants to help in whatever way he can.
Secondary characters include J. Atwell Hunt, unfaithful to his own spouse, and Greggs, whom that spouse has hired to prove the infidelity.
One Year Later has its flaws. The beginning, as I indicated, is inauspicious. The secondary stories and characters should have been better developed or not developed at all. (Thus, by implication, the movie may be seen either as too short or as too long.) But the central story is rather well handled. Most of the acting is of fairly high quality and Mary Brian and Russell Hopton in particular do fine jobs with their roles. And the resolution was relatively novel and bittersweet, rather than being trite and saccharine as one might have expected.
The core story of One Year Later is that of Molly, a young woman desperate to reconcile with her husband before she loses him finally and terribly to the electric chair. Jim is to die for killing his former boss, the man with whom Jim thought his wife to have been having an affair. Sure that Molly was unfaithful, Jim will not so much as listen to her. Jim has been made to board a train headed to the prison in which he is to die. Molly has got a berth on the same train, trying as she might to talk to Jim.
Also riding towards death is Tony, a reporter dying of lung disease. Tony knows something of Jim and Molly's story, and wants to help in whatever way he can.
Secondary characters include J. Atwell Hunt, unfaithful to his own spouse, and Greggs, whom that spouse has hired to prove the infidelity.
One Year Later has its flaws. The beginning, as I indicated, is inauspicious. The secondary stories and characters should have been better developed or not developed at all. (Thus, by implication, the movie may be seen either as too short or as too long.) But the central story is rather well handled. Most of the acting is of fairly high quality and Mary Brian and Russell Hopton in particular do fine jobs with their roles. And the resolution was relatively novel and bittersweet, rather than being trite and saccharine as one might have expected.
Meeting of Minds
(1977–1981)
Meeting of Mediocrities and Misrepresentations
14 August 2007
A critic once noted that Steven Allen seemed to have succeeded by virtue of being mediocre at many things. If anything illustrated the extent to which Allen's reach exceeded his grasp -- and the extent to which he could be dragged below the level of mediocrity in his attempts to keep afloat the career of his wife, Jayne Meadows -- it was this show.
The pretense of this show was that some of the most influential thinkers of history would be assembled to converse one with another -- an outstanding assemblage of "talking heads" as it were. Of course, these were figures as Allen conceptualized them, and he really couldn't conceptualize a mind that rose above his own banalities. Thus, for example, Alleged Aristotle yammers trivially about the obvious difference between all X being Y and all Y being X, instead of exhibiting some of the true profundity of his thinking. And the caricature of Marx gets treated with kid gloves by the other caricatures, because Allen couldn't himself have properly understood or critiqued Marx.
Most ghastly of all, Jayne Meadows appears in every episode, ostensibly as, say, Marie Antoinette or as Elizabeth Barrett Browning, but really as candied ham long past its sell-by date.
The pretense of this show was that some of the most influential thinkers of history would be assembled to converse one with another -- an outstanding assemblage of "talking heads" as it were. Of course, these were figures as Allen conceptualized them, and he really couldn't conceptualize a mind that rose above his own banalities. Thus, for example, Alleged Aristotle yammers trivially about the obvious difference between all X being Y and all Y being X, instead of exhibiting some of the true profundity of his thinking. And the caricature of Marx gets treated with kid gloves by the other caricatures, because Allen couldn't himself have properly understood or critiqued Marx.
Most ghastly of all, Jayne Meadows appears in every episode, ostensibly as, say, Marie Antoinette or as Elizabeth Barrett Browning, but really as candied ham long past its sell-by date.
I Bury the Living
(1958)
Look Again
12 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Various viewers have expressed some disappointment in the ending of this film, but I'd like to point out that it would have been difficult if not impossible to end a visual presentation without disappointing some majority of the audience. Perhaps more importantly, I'd like to point out that the ending of this movie is widely misunderstood.
Until its ending, this movie is plainly very much a "psychological" thriller. The monster that we can *see* is a *map*, and its little black pins.
Only one character (prior to the ending) was actually seen dying, most of that character's body is out-of-frame or obscured by objects in the foreground, and we cannot infer much about the cause of his death from that scene.
Likewise, when graves begin to empty or be emptied, most of this is out-of-frame. Critics should attend to the effect of those emptied graves and of the way in which they are empty. If the undead were seen clawing their way out of the grave, the image would have been coarse and hence less effective. Had they clawed their way out, they would have had to have either broken the lid of a fairly new coffin or lifted it against the weight of a considerable amount of earth. Once out of the coffin, they would have had to tunnel through that earth. As they tunneled, the earth would have caved-in behind them. Instead of neat holes with squared sides, Robert would have seen churned mounds and depressions of earth. At that point, the film wouldn't have been a "psychological" thriller any more; it would have been an Attack of the Unsanitary.
(And if the victims returned incorporeally, then there would have been no cause for the graves to be physically emptied.) X.
Indeed, it would have been very hard to hold onto the elements that that make the movie work *until* its end and have the victims return at all. If the victims return at all, then the map is so displaced in the role of monster that we have to ask why waste it in a ghost or zombie flick.
I grant that a surface reading of the ending of the movie is *also* disappointing, but I submit that the surface reading is quite mistaken.
That surface reading would have the story be rife with coincidence and convoluted scheming. Walk through it. The first two deaths would have to be pure coincidence. The third death would be in implausible anticipation of what sort of experimentation would follow. And the ostensible villain, demonstrably prepared to kill others directly and ultimately to shoot his final target, would have to think it better to dig up seven graves, in the hopes that the final target would wander out, discover the emptied graves, and then react by killing himself. No wonder so many viewers think that the resolution is a mess. But it's *not* the resolution. It's just the mess that all but one of the characters accepts as the resolution.
The simpler explanation is given by Robert, whom no one else believes.
Until its ending, this movie is plainly very much a "psychological" thriller. The monster that we can *see* is a *map*, and its little black pins.
Only one character (prior to the ending) was actually seen dying, most of that character's body is out-of-frame or obscured by objects in the foreground, and we cannot infer much about the cause of his death from that scene.
Likewise, when graves begin to empty or be emptied, most of this is out-of-frame. Critics should attend to the effect of those emptied graves and of the way in which they are empty. If the undead were seen clawing their way out of the grave, the image would have been coarse and hence less effective. Had they clawed their way out, they would have had to have either broken the lid of a fairly new coffin or lifted it against the weight of a considerable amount of earth. Once out of the coffin, they would have had to tunnel through that earth. As they tunneled, the earth would have caved-in behind them. Instead of neat holes with squared sides, Robert would have seen churned mounds and depressions of earth. At that point, the film wouldn't have been a "psychological" thriller any more; it would have been an Attack of the Unsanitary.
(And if the victims returned incorporeally, then there would have been no cause for the graves to be physically emptied.) X.
Indeed, it would have been very hard to hold onto the elements that that make the movie work *until* its end and have the victims return at all. If the victims return at all, then the map is so displaced in the role of monster that we have to ask why waste it in a ghost or zombie flick.
I grant that a surface reading of the ending of the movie is *also* disappointing, but I submit that the surface reading is quite mistaken.
That surface reading would have the story be rife with coincidence and convoluted scheming. Walk through it. The first two deaths would have to be pure coincidence. The third death would be in implausible anticipation of what sort of experimentation would follow. And the ostensible villain, demonstrably prepared to kill others directly and ultimately to shoot his final target, would have to think it better to dig up seven graves, in the hopes that the final target would wander out, discover the emptied graves, and then react by killing himself. No wonder so many viewers think that the resolution is a mess. But it's *not* the resolution. It's just the mess that all but one of the characters accepts as the resolution.
The simpler explanation is given by Robert, whom no one else believes.
A Strange Adventure
(1932)
Not enough evidence to solve the crime; not enough story for an hour of film
28 July 2007
This movie is a whodunit dressed-up like a mix of Midnight Faces (1926) with The Cat and the Canary (1927).
There is a clever twist to how the murder itself is effected, but unfortunately the story containing it is rather meager; it could have been presented in perhaps 20 minutes, rather than in the hour expended.
As in various other films, an independent investigator whose behavior is plainly illegal is tolerated rather than taken into custody or even expelled. The explanatory device, in this case, is that the officer in charge is in love with her, but credibility is over-stretched.
That officer ultimately solves the case using evidence withheld from the audience while in his possession; that evidence is not particularly surprising, but it also is not sufficiently strong, especially given that the officer had to rely upon testimony as to events at the time of the murder, rather that being himself a witness to it.
Another flaw in this story, common to a great many films of the period, is the presence of a stereotyped black servant -- dim-witted, superstitious, cowardly, and slow-moving except when terrified.
There is a clever twist to how the murder itself is effected, but unfortunately the story containing it is rather meager; it could have been presented in perhaps 20 minutes, rather than in the hour expended.
As in various other films, an independent investigator whose behavior is plainly illegal is tolerated rather than taken into custody or even expelled. The explanatory device, in this case, is that the officer in charge is in love with her, but credibility is over-stretched.
That officer ultimately solves the case using evidence withheld from the audience while in his possession; that evidence is not particularly surprising, but it also is not sufficiently strong, especially given that the officer had to rely upon testimony as to events at the time of the murder, rather that being himself a witness to it.
Another flaw in this story, common to a great many films of the period, is the presence of a stereotyped black servant -- dim-witted, superstitious, cowardly, and slow-moving except when terrified.
The Bat
(1926)
A groan-a-minute thriller
17 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Years ago, there used to be a toy football game, which featured little figurines of players, and a vibrating field. The vibrations of the field would cause the figures to move about, like little men running; except that, well, they were like little men running randomly, into each other or into corners or perhaps in useless circles.
Unfortunately, after an extremely good start, The Bat begins to remind one of that dreadful vibrating toy. The characters to some extent move purposefully, but much of their behavior just amounts to moving about as if randomly.
The film should certainly be judged in context, and the fact is that this film is very much a product of its time. Attacking it for the story that it tells and the way in which it tells it is somewhat like attacking it for being silent and in greyscale; but, after all, it would indeed also be unfair to let a potential viewer think that this movie were a treat for the ears and in glorious color.
Those particularly interested the Old Dark House genre should definitely watch this film, as it is either the first of the genre or the immediate precursor. And those interested in the influences that led to the character of the Batman should also watch this film, as the Bat of the title wears a bat costume and swings about the sides of buildings with the aid of ropes, and as there is a sort-of bat-signal.
Spoiler: .stiderc eht ni eil a si erehT (And IMDb's spell-checker is okay with ".stiderc"! Go figure!)
Unfortunately, after an extremely good start, The Bat begins to remind one of that dreadful vibrating toy. The characters to some extent move purposefully, but much of their behavior just amounts to moving about as if randomly.
The film should certainly be judged in context, and the fact is that this film is very much a product of its time. Attacking it for the story that it tells and the way in which it tells it is somewhat like attacking it for being silent and in greyscale; but, after all, it would indeed also be unfair to let a potential viewer think that this movie were a treat for the ears and in glorious color.
Those particularly interested the Old Dark House genre should definitely watch this film, as it is either the first of the genre or the immediate precursor. And those interested in the influences that led to the character of the Batman should also watch this film, as the Bat of the title wears a bat costume and swings about the sides of buildings with the aid of ropes, and as there is a sort-of bat-signal.
Spoiler: .stiderc eht ni eil a si erehT (And IMDb's spell-checker is okay with ".stiderc"! Go figure!)
Please Stand By
(1978– )
A Charming Show that Couldn't Overcome a Handicap and a Loss
5 July 2007
This show was generally well-written, and sometimes quite clever. The original cast -- perhaps especially Marcie Barkin -- were talented and otherwise appealing.
Unfortunately, the show was syndicated rather than provided by way of a network, limiting the exposure of the show.
Then Elinor Donahue left (I can only speculate as to why), and this show centered about a family of five had to choose between removing the character of the mother or replacing the actress. They chose to do the latter -- with an actress of markedly different physical type and mannerisms, and not of a great deal of presence.
Jointly, the handicap and the loss were too much, and the show failed in the television marketplace of the late '70s.
Unfortunately, the show was syndicated rather than provided by way of a network, limiting the exposure of the show.
Then Elinor Donahue left (I can only speculate as to why), and this show centered about a family of five had to choose between removing the character of the mother or replacing the actress. They chose to do the latter -- with an actress of markedly different physical type and mannerisms, and not of a great deal of presence.
Jointly, the handicap and the loss were too much, and the show failed in the television marketplace of the late '70s.
Midnight Faces
(1926)
Only of Historical Interest
4 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Badly written and badly directed, this film is only of historical interest, perhaps as an early example of the Old Dark House genre, or of the racial stereotyping of blacks as fearful, as superstitious, and as otherwise stupid. (There is also a stereotypical Chinaman in this movie.) There is relatively little story here: A Young Man has been informed by a Lawyer that the Young Man is an heir to an estate that includes an Old Dark House. He and various persons arrive, for various reasons yet all on the same day, for his first night there. One of them is a Young Woman who is subsequently menaced by a Cloaked Figure who makes use of secret passages within and to the house. Eventually the Cloaked Figure seizes the Young Woman, and he is pursued. During this pursuit and the fight that erupts, the respective roles of the other characters are revealed.
The internal logic of the story fails repeatedly. For example, early in the story the audience sees the Cloaked Figure climbing in and out of windows of the Old Dark House, but there doesn't seem to have been a good reason at that point for him not to have simply used the hallways within the house. The Cloaked Figure has, as it turns out, a good reason to menace the Young Woman; but he also menaces the Black Servant for no good reason. Twice the Young Man responds to cries for help as if wondering just what "Help!" might mean. His initial response to the Cloaked Figure is as if such things are merely a nuisance to be expected in one's home. After the Cloaked Figure has seized the Young Woman, it eventually dawns on the Young Man that her situation might be urgent, but his subsequent search for her is rather desultory, and includes a pause during which he and another white fellow mock the Black Servant as a foolish braggart. None of the ostensible Good Guys are inclined to dash when they could walk briskly, and one is lucky if they do even that. During the final conflict between the Young Man and the Cloaked figure, the other Good Guys essentially mill-about, as if having joined the audience (albeit with a greater level of interest than the audience must now feel).
The internal logic of the story fails repeatedly. For example, early in the story the audience sees the Cloaked Figure climbing in and out of windows of the Old Dark House, but there doesn't seem to have been a good reason at that point for him not to have simply used the hallways within the house. The Cloaked Figure has, as it turns out, a good reason to menace the Young Woman; but he also menaces the Black Servant for no good reason. Twice the Young Man responds to cries for help as if wondering just what "Help!" might mean. His initial response to the Cloaked Figure is as if such things are merely a nuisance to be expected in one's home. After the Cloaked Figure has seized the Young Woman, it eventually dawns on the Young Man that her situation might be urgent, but his subsequent search for her is rather desultory, and includes a pause during which he and another white fellow mock the Black Servant as a foolish braggart. None of the ostensible Good Guys are inclined to dash when they could walk briskly, and one is lucky if they do even that. During the final conflict between the Young Man and the Cloaked figure, the other Good Guys essentially mill-about, as if having joined the audience (albeit with a greater level of interest than the audience must now feel).
Eitoman
(1963–1964)
Not Quite as Original as Claimed
27 March 2007
It is sometimes claimed that Eitoman is the fountainhead from which RoboCop and similar cyborg fiction comes. In point of fact, the crime fighting cyborg was introduced with or before DC's original Robotman (created by Siegel and Schuster, who had earlier created Superman) in the Apr 1942 Star-Spangled Comics. The original Robotman, who had a human brain and an otherwise robotic body, appeared routinely until 1953. He was occasionally reprinted, and revived later. There were probably antecedents for Robotman in the American pulp magazines of the '30s or '40s. Certainly science fiction magazines, books, and comic books continued to feature such characters subsequently.
Eitoman might or might not have played some role in informing the creators of RoboCop; but it didn't present the innovation often claimed.
Eitoman might or might not have played some role in informing the creators of RoboCop; but it didn't present the innovation often claimed.
Perhaps as a student film this would have been acceptable.
11 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The plot of this story lacks coherence. We are given no indication why the townspeople should find it in their interests to conceal the crimes which underlie the story, let alone why they should provide a certain degree of positive co-operation with the perpetrators. A work of art is destroyed by someone who ought to regard it as priceless if not indeed sacred.
The story requires that its more protagonistic characters refuse to communicate with each other, for no discernible reason or reasons, and that the principal repeatedly postpones investigating obviously key aspects of the puzzle with which he is ostensibly obsessed.
The revelation of the identity of one character is underlined by an act of physical exposure effected ex nihilo, and made ignoring the fact that the character is elderly.
The cinematography is like that of an American made-for-television movie of the late '60s or '70s. A study of the work of Carl Theodor Dreyer might have led to better results.
Since the alleged brilliance of an artist is essential to the story, the artwork used should have been something more than mediocre; instead, it is something less.
And no one in the film notes that St Sebastian, depicted by the central painting as being knifed to death, was in fact shot with arrows, and survived that experience (though not the subsequent beating).
The story requires that its more protagonistic characters refuse to communicate with each other, for no discernible reason or reasons, and that the principal repeatedly postpones investigating obviously key aspects of the puzzle with which he is ostensibly obsessed.
The revelation of the identity of one character is underlined by an act of physical exposure effected ex nihilo, and made ignoring the fact that the character is elderly.
The cinematography is like that of an American made-for-television movie of the late '60s or '70s. A study of the work of Carl Theodor Dreyer might have led to better results.
Since the alleged brilliance of an artist is essential to the story, the artwork used should have been something more than mediocre; instead, it is something less.
And no one in the film notes that St Sebastian, depicted by the central painting as being knifed to death, was in fact shot with arrows, and survived that experience (though not the subsequent beating).
Lady in the Lake
(1946)
No Wonder Chandler Was Outraged
7 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Montgomery substitutes a gimmick for quality film-making. He and Fisher and have absolutely no ear for Chandler-esquire writing. Actors hit marks and then don't move from them through the rest of scenes, and lines are delivered as if read from cue cards. The film is essentially confined to interior scenes shot in sets that look like sets -- the pivotal scene of the book, in which the lady is found in the lake, is replaced with mere narrative. In the one scene in which he appears -- at a mirror -- Montgomery doesn't capture the demeanor of Marlowe, "who himself is not mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid" but is nonetheless wearied beyond his years by going down "mean streets". And that scene at the mirror proves that Montgomery hadn't even the competence to master his gimmick, as it is plainly shot at an angle to hide the camera, so that the camera does not see Marlowe's reflection as he would have seen it.
WKRP in Cincinnati
(1978–1982)
Odd Ideological Trajectory
6 March 2005
This show began as a happily absurd depiction of a radio station transitioning from the moribund music culture that had prevailed in '70s Cincinatti to, basically, Top 40 music. To the extent that it engaged in social commentary, it presented light-hearted digs at mid-western conservatism (as manifested by the manager, newsman, and salesman), stoner disk jockeys (as represented by "Dr Fever"), and the excesses of popular black culture (with a pimped-out DJ ridiculously named "Venus Flytrap").
But somewhere along the line, it adopted a labour theory of value, an exploitation theory of profit, and a dark-conspiracy-theory model of corporate behavior; it felt the need to present victims of '50s blacklisting simply as martyrs (as if those who survived into the 70s weren't generally and undeserving lionized); it even decided to champion the result of when "Lennon read a book on Marx" (if I may quote Don McLean). In other words, the show had moved quietly but decisively to the radical political left.
Now-a-days, the show faces an interesting legal and technological hurdle. Much of its dialogue is intermixed with snippets of music, which were not legally cleared for use in release to all forms of home video. The cost of securing those many clearances is prohibitive. So the show is unlikely to come out on DVD (or whatnot) until a cost-effective technology can extract the dialogue and replace the music with snippets that have been cleared.
But somewhere along the line, it adopted a labour theory of value, an exploitation theory of profit, and a dark-conspiracy-theory model of corporate behavior; it felt the need to present victims of '50s blacklisting simply as martyrs (as if those who survived into the 70s weren't generally and undeserving lionized); it even decided to champion the result of when "Lennon read a book on Marx" (if I may quote Don McLean). In other words, the show had moved quietly but decisively to the radical political left.
Now-a-days, the show faces an interesting legal and technological hurdle. Much of its dialogue is intermixed with snippets of music, which were not legally cleared for use in release to all forms of home video. The cost of securing those many clearances is prohibitive. So the show is unlikely to come out on DVD (or whatnot) until a cost-effective technology can extract the dialogue and replace the music with snippets that have been cleared.
Cyberchase
(2002– )
Very poorly realized
1 September 2004
This show will make no contribution towards the production of future mathematicians or computer scientists. It may, in fact, alienate bright children (who, as I suppose, must then turn to the life sciences or to the humanities).
The show is tediously paced because all of the characters are of less-than-average intelligence. The mathematical principles are showcased by poorly chosen parables. Isomorphisms are generally unrecognized.
Visually, the show is unpleasant; others have produced far better animation with far tighter resources.
The villain, Hacker, is always thwarted, but not actually punished. Crime seems not to pay, but it is almost costless to the criminal in this world.
The show is tediously paced because all of the characters are of less-than-average intelligence. The mathematical principles are showcased by poorly chosen parables. Isomorphisms are generally unrecognized.
Visually, the show is unpleasant; others have produced far better animation with far tighter resources.
The villain, Hacker, is always thwarted, but not actually punished. Crime seems not to pay, but it is almost costless to the criminal in this world.
7th Heaven
(1996–2007)
Not Ultra-Conservative at All!
28 March 2004
It's disturbing to read a "Plot Outline" which categorizes the Camdens as "ultra-conservative". The Camdens embrace values that use to be seen as quintessentially liberal; they are tolerant, generous, and believe in the redeemability of almost every human being. But, apparently, we are to look at them as "ultra-conservative" because of the choices that most of them make for themselves, generally eschewing alcohol and other drugs, premarital sex, and so forth -- even as they remain in respectful communication with those who make different choices. The Camdens also are notably Christian, but the Reverend Camden leans upon -- and offers support to -- a rabbi, and his youngest daughter pals around with a Muslim girl. I don't agree with the Camdens on everything (I'm an atheist), and I find this show too often sacchrine. But, in any event, it certainly doesn't represent what I would call "ultra-conservativism"; instead, it represents that to which most Americans aspire.
The Way We Live Now
(2001)
Jarring Elements
23 June 2003
I found two elements of this miniseries jarring.
First, Melmotte's opponent in the parliamentary election uses the phrase "pie in the sky". This is a 20th Americanism (appearing first in Joe Hill's "The Preacher and the Slave" in a 1911 IWW songbook), not something found in England circa 1870.
Second, Davies has Melmotte speak out in parliament against protectionism. Why did Davies feel the need to hang the albatross of Melmotte around the neck of free trade?
First, Melmotte's opponent in the parliamentary election uses the phrase "pie in the sky". This is a 20th Americanism (appearing first in Joe Hill's "The Preacher and the Slave" in a 1911 IWW songbook), not something found in England circa 1870.
Second, Davies has Melmotte speak out in parliament against protectionism. Why did Davies feel the need to hang the albatross of Melmotte around the neck of free trade?
One in a Million
(1980– )
Underestimated the Viewer Intelligence
24 January 2003
This series proved that, contrary to cynical claims, it was actually possible to underestimate the intelligence of the viewing audience.
The premise of the show was that a street-wise cabbie (Shirley) could inherit control of a powerful corporation, and make it a force for "good", where "good" is defined by the envious and illiterate. Shirley would, for example, insist that the corporation which had been extracting profit from the community begin returning that profit to the community, as if trade were a zero-sum game and profit were somehow unfair.
I have no idea whether the writers subscribed to such theories, or were attempting to pander to the worst among us. But, in any event, the worst were sufficiently few in number that the show was cancelled in its first season.
The premise of the show was that a street-wise cabbie (Shirley) could inherit control of a powerful corporation, and make it a force for "good", where "good" is defined by the envious and illiterate. Shirley would, for example, insist that the corporation which had been extracting profit from the community begin returning that profit to the community, as if trade were a zero-sum game and profit were somehow unfair.
I have no idea whether the writers subscribed to such theories, or were attempting to pander to the worst among us. But, in any event, the worst were sufficiently few in number that the show was cancelled in its first season.
Tell Your Friends