artisticengineer Reviews

Afternoon of a Faun: Tanaquil Le Clercq (2013)

Eight men Out meet Ballet

[8/10 · 2 July 2014]

There are actually TWO spoilers in this review; one for the reviewed movie and one for the movie "Eight Men Out".

This movie is probably THE definitive biography of the renowned ballerina Tanaquil Le Clercq. She was the last wife of George Balanchine; the legendary ballet master of the New York City Ballet, and was professionally active from just after WWII to one night in Copenhagen, Denmark in 1956. A very beautiful woman; her body type became the prototype of the Balanchine dancer.She married Mr. B in 1952, shortly after his marriage to Maria Tallchief ended. There was a 25 year difference in their ages. She was the prime ballerina of the NYCB. She made one mistake before leaving with the NYCB on a European tour; she did not take her polio shot. Murphy's Law took effect and a few weeks later she came down with a very severe case of polio. The doctors did not expect her to live, but she fooled everybody and did. However, she was left with a bad case of paralysis and never walked, let alone danced, again.

The director of this film, Nancy Buirski, did a great job in obtaining archival footage of Le Clercq and later still photographs and even home movies of the ballerina in her later years. She also obtained recent interviews of individuals who had known Le Clercq and even danced with her. Tremendous insight into the relationship between Jerome Robbins and Le Clercq is obtained in the interviews and letters of Robbins himself. This is a fine movie and worth seeing.

The only criticism I have of it is the length of time used in portraying her post illness life. She never walked again; let alone danced. She did teach and there are a few photos of her in a dance studio in her wheelchair, but I think too much time (about half the entire film) was devoted to her life afterwords. I am thinking of the movie "Eight Men Out"; which has a dreary and sad ending. The last few minutes of that movie are a classic as it shows men whose professional lives are ruined and there is no real hope of them ever getting their careers back.

That movie performed a fantastic feat in showing a scene that epitomized a feeling or mood. I wish this movie had truncated most of the post polio struggle with a scene of that sort; perhaps emphasizing one interviewee who stated that Le Clercq left George Balanchine as she wanted him to have his freedom back; so he could on with his life (he had taken excellent care of her for some years after her paralysis set in-probably vainly hoping she would make more of a recovery than she did). There was no reason to continue to state the obvious; she was (like the ballplayers in Eight Men Out) at the top of her career and profession when she lost everything -like they did. Both films are tragedies; tragedies of people who made one mistake and lost more than most of us will ever have.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

Suspension of disbelief requires too much in this movie

[1/10 · 12 August 2013]

Though not an objectivist, I have an interest in the philosophy or belief system. Since seeing the 1940s movie "The Fountainhead" some years ago I have been waiting for the movie adaptation of "Atlas Shrugged". Well, my wait was rewarded with the issuance of Part I, but I noticed that this movie did not receive much publicity. Well, Hollywood is full of dreamers and socialists who cannot or will not face reality so I figured that was the reason. It wasn't. This movie goes to such lengths to show the Objectivist philosophy that it, ironically, actually breaks completely with reality. This should never have been filmed.

The movie starts by showing the conditions of the American economy of 2016 and the problems faced in this economy. It is a somewhat unrealistic in how grim the economy of 2016 is portrayed but that does not go beyond the bounds of belief. The situation develops into a crisis where a railroad firm that needs to replace some very old track in Colorado. The movie implies that this old track is a century old. I doubt that any rails that old are left in place in real life but that is not the primary problem with this movie. What is the primary problem is that we have a railroad executive and deciding to use a new metal that is advertised as lighter and stronger than the metal used up to that time for rails. This metal is untested and unproved yet the executive goes with her (yes, the executive is a woman and strong willed women are found in Ayn Ryn's works; as can be expected due to the author) hunch. If she is right there is a tremendous improvement in the rail business; if she is wrong the railroad will go out of business. The manufacturer of this metal has a full factory dedicated to its production.

This whole situation is insane!! We are asked to suspend disbelief and assume that somebody is using an untried metal in an endeavor with public safety concerns?! That would not even be allowed due to issues of it affecting the good of the people. By even using the objectivist criteria this concept is still insane. A company would go out of business if this metal fails, so would it not be in the self-interest of the owner of the railroad to have it tested before he/she commits to it? Of course it would!

Metal or metallurgical testing is a very developed science. To use an untested metal (this is the first commercial use of the metal no less) on a major project that involves public safety is not the decision of a self-interested person with vision but rather that of a deluded individual who probably has visions due to hallucinations! I know of the qualification requirements for use of new materials and everybody (objectivist or socialist) agrees the process should be very thorough. This movie is so far off that there is no way it could be viewed as realistic. There is a limit to suspension of disbelief and this movie goes beyond that limit. Objectivism or socialism or any other philosophy is not proved or disproven by this movie as it is just too unrealistic. Sad.

The Innocents (1961)

A very profound thriller

[8/10 · 30 June 2013]

I wish to write this review as I do not believe many of the reviews for this film have been written by a skeptic. My viewpoint will be a little different than the usual review's take on matters due to that reason. I hope this review is interesting to the reader, but the reader must realize my different viewpoint.

Despite the movies and plethora of TV shows treating the existence of ghosts as a "given" there actually is no conclusive evidence for such things. The various TV shows that depict ghost hunting are bemusing, at most; most probably delusional, as they will show people equipped with thermometers, emf meters, infrared cameras, and other such specialized equipment looking for ghosts yet one wonders just how can one prepare oneself to look for something if that something has never even been proved to exist in the first place? And, there is no surprise, at least to me, when they never find anything conclusive.

Yet, the belief in ghosts must have some foundation. Somebody, somewhere, must have experienced or seen something that is "ghostlike". And, this movie deals with that position. Here, a live in "babysitter" (modern term for Deborah Kerr's role) experiences some things that are not easily explainable. Yet, nobody else seems to experience what she is experiencing. Or, do they but don't tell her? She has two young children to look after in a beautiful but rather empty Victorian mansion. The children are brother and sister and provide a sort of emotional mirror to a grown man and adult woman who had died fairly recently in this place and whom the children knew. The babysitter has an older woman to help her and this woman tells of the love of the now dead lovers. But, are the dead lovers gone or still there. The babysitter sees these "ghosts" in a frightening manner that seems to indicate no doubt of their existence...but nobody else does!!

Not told in this story but implied is the fact that this babysitter ("governess" as they called them back then) is unmarried and around 40. Certainly she has some emotional issues over that! Though Deborah Kerr said this her finest role, her physical beauty was such that nobody could imagine her character was unmarried for lack of attention from men. In the original story the governess was probably more of a frustrated "plain Jane" who had issues with that fact and probably projected herself into the story of the dead lovers for that reason.

So, is the governess imagining the ghosts or are there actually remnants of people now dead still lurking in that area? While watching the movie and trying to answer that question be prepared for some frightening events and sheer emotional terror. No great special effects like you see in modern films; just suspense and terror. They don't make these sort of films now like they used to so it is well worth viewing for a couple of hours.

Star Trek: What Are Little Girls Made Of? (1966) Season 1, Episode 7

Actually a look at a 19th Century mystery

[9/10 · 22 June 2013]

The Enterprise is sent out to find an expedition that has been missing for 5 years on an Earth like planet. The planet has earth like gravity and a breathable atmosphere but it's average temperature is -100 degrees Fahrenheit! The missing expedition is or was headed by Dr. Roger Corby; whose last message to Earth talked about finding traces or remnants of an early civilization on that planet.

After he sent out the message all contact with the expedition was lost. Two search expeditions were sent out to find him in the intervening period but were unsuccessful. Why the Enterprise is being sent to search at such a late date is unclear in this episode. Spoke briefly indicates early on, in reply to a question about the possibility of finding anybody alive, that is is "highly unlikely" that there are any survivors. So, why is the Enterprise even there? Should not Dr. Corby have been written off by Star fleet by that point?

The answer lies in 19th century history. In the mid 1840s a British expedition named "The Franklin Expedition" (named after the commander, NOT after Benjamin Franklin) sailed into the Arctic to find the "Northwest Passage". They did meet another civilization albeit the Inuits (who were already known to explorers) and then, they disappeared. Search parties were sent into that area and searched for about 5 years but did not find the expedition. After that period of time the ~120 officers and men and two ships were written off the Admiralty lists. Yet, there was a desire to know what actually happened even though the officers and men were certainly dead so some years later a single ship (the "Fox") made one last foray into the Arctic to find out what happened to the ill fated expedition.

In this episode the Enterprise is making the same type of last ditch Arctic search that the "Fox" made in 1857. The "Fox" found a last note from the leader of the Franklin expedition. By analogy, in this episode, at the beginning, the Enterprise also receives a message from Corby himself! Why, exactly, they received a message when previous searchers did not is not really explained (the Fox hunted for the Franklin Expedition in a different area than previous expeditions had searched for-the Enterprise seems not to be doing anything different than the previous expeditions had done so there is a little mystery here).

There was, for many years in the mid to late 19th century, speculation that there were some survivors of the Franklin Expedition somewhere in the Arctic though survivors were never found; only relics. Nobody knows when the last Franklin crew member finally perished, but he did so without being found. In this episode the writers are stating there are survivors found, despite realistic analysis indicating they should have all died by then, of a lost expedition. The episode is really a 'what if" Franklin expedition members had been found; though the setting is not the 19th century but the 22nd. Still, one can see the analogy.

The Outer Limits: Corpus Earthling (1963) Season 1, Episode 9

Interesting episode in an historical sense

[9/10 · 31 August 2012]

This episode was the last televised episode of the series prior to the assassination of President Kennedy; so we are talking about something that was televised quite a long time ago- in November 1963. A previous episode of this then new series had as a plot the removal of the President of the United States; which fortunately was broadcast BEFORE the terrible events in Dallas a few weeks later.

Anyway, it is interesting to see in this particular episode interior settings that were typical of that time (early to mid 1960s). Not a cell phone or PC in sight yet still quite livable and workable!

Salome Jens is quite lovely in this episode though she is billed as a "guest star"- which is somewhat odd considering the nature of this series. Anyway, she is quite attractive and even does the "slip" act where she undresses down to her slip; which is about as close to anything erotic they would allow actresses to do in movies and TV back then. She was quite a "peach" then and utterly believable as a newly wed (which I think she actually was then).

Robert Culp is also quite believable as a doctor with a metal plate in his head (which he actually was not nor did not have). The acting chemistry between Salome Jens and Robert Culp was quite good; so much so that one wonders if there was not actually something else going on behind the scenes. One would have to ask Salome Jens if that was, in fact, the case.

The plot is of interest- can rocks actually be intelligent? And, if so, could and would we know? And, if the rocks were intelligent, would they be benevolent or malevolent? The look at the historical lifestyles in this episode is a treat in its own right, but it also brings to mind the fact that even fifty years later ...well, no spoilers here, go ahead and watch the episode and see for yourself!!

John Carter (2012)

A great effort to show an Edgar Rice Burroughs story that does not include Tarzan

[8/10 · 25 March 2012]

Edgar Rice Burroughs was the creator of Tarzan- Lord Greystoke who grew up among the apes yet somehow became an educated and mannered human being; while still being able to rule his "tribe" of apes. Though the Tarzan stories were adapted for movies the most well known ones did not show such an erudite side to the character; and these are the stories that most people know of the authorship of Burroughs.

Actually, he wrote a number of novels for another character; John Carter, gentleman adventurer. And, in these novels this protagonist literally goes "out of this world"! He goes to the planet Mars. A little bit of history here- in 1877 the noted Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli saw, through a telescope, some markings on the planet Mars that called "canali" (in his native Italian) and conjectured they were water channels. In the early 20th century the amateur astronomer Percival Lowell mistranslated this term and concluded the channels were canals instead. Canals are artificial waterways and constructed by humans. Of course, on Mars somebody other than humans would have to construct them and the nature of this "somebody" is what Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote his John Carter novels about.

Do not get too involved with the plausibility or lack of in this movie. The nature of Mars was pretty much unknown when Burroughs wrote these novels. For all anybody knew then, great empires could exist on Mars. Burroughs wrote these novels when people felt that airships that were as large as sailing ships would eventually be built and fly at sailing speeds (i.e. <50 knots) instead of the very high speeds that aircraft actually fly at. Rather instead, view this movie as awe and grandeur as you are taken from the Wild West that John Carter found himself at and are transported instantly to a incredibly developed planet that nonetheless still has good guys, bad guys, heroes, villains, loyal pets, and a beautiful damsel in distress. What more could one ask from a movie?!

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

A superb retelling of a Cold War Classic

[9/10 · 14 January 2012]

This is a retelling of the novel of the same name. It is NOT a remake of the 1979 film starring Sir Alec Guinness as George Smiley. The 1979 film was not actually a film; rather it was a mini series with over 12 hours of material (the UK version was, in fact, slightly longer!). Hence the reason why I consider this is a retelling; not a remake, as it is much different than the original screen adaptation.

The 1979 version was filmed during the cold war; when actual Russian actors were not available for use in Russian roles. Remember the 1965 movie "Dr. Zhivago"? A true classic, set entirely in Russia, yet none of the actors were Russian - heck, the title role was acted by an Egyptian!! Same problem existed in 1979; when even the filming for the East European location of Czechoslovakia was actually done in Glasgow, Scotland! Nowadays, Eastern European locations can be filmed where set and the Russian roles can and are portrayed by native Russians, and this version (2011) has done precisely that. This adds a considerable amount of authenticity to this film. Also, the London shown in this film, is shown as the grimy, still somewhat war dirtied, place that is still was in 1973. It was quite an achievement to show it as that in the film as the London of today is actually a very clean and modern city that has been restored to its height of empire glory.

If you want a "James Bond" type spy movie-this is NOT it. This is a spy movie based on actual events (the Kim Philby scandal). The actors do a good job of portraying fear and nervousness as anybody involved in these types of actual events would be in a not inconsiderable state of anxiety until everything was resolved. A mole has been detected, but not identified, in the highest realms of British Intelligence. Or, is there actually one?? And, if there is one, how could one possibly find this mole? To find out, watch the movie. Don' trust me or anybody else, see the movie yourself to find out!

The Vampire Happening (1971)

A hidden gem; from a "golden age"-of sorts

[8/10 · 3 January 2012]

This movie was the last of four movies showcasing the beauty of Pia Degermark; a Swedish actress from the 1960s. She was the classic beauty in the Swedish movie "Elvira Madigan"- a movie that won quite a few awards on the international scene and made her a well known actress on her initial outing at age 18. This movie came out in 1967 and though set in the 19th century actually reflected the changing attitudes and mores of Western Society during the "golden age" of the youth movement.

She had a very strong supporting role a couple of years later in the movie "The Looking Glass War"; a realistic view of espionage during that period. Her role as "The Girl" in that movie was very strong and she showed her acting strength alongside that of a young Anthony Hopkins!

"The Vampire Happening" is a much more lighthearted movie than Elvira Madigan or The Looking Glass War or the seldom seen "A Brief Season" . She had just married a wealthy Italian industrialist who was also a noted film producer, and he wanted to show off his "trophy wife." And, she wanted to show off herself; hence the large amount of nudity. In her case it was pretty much only topless nudity- of historical interest are the scenes in the torture chamber where a nude female is subjected to medieval punishment. These scenes were brushing against the censor standards of that age. Though Sweden (Degermark's home country) had allowed some "artistic" female nudity in its own films for a few years prior to that the films had generally not been distributed in the "unrated" format outside of that country. This film was one of the first distributed films showing the torture of a nude woman; as well as giving a substantial glance at her pubic region (not usually allowed back then- you could show breasts and butts only and were glad you show even that much!). They got away with showing the realistic torture scenes in this movie as they were depicted in a fairly "lighthearted " manner and in a day dream sequence. Nevertheless, this film is sometimes mentioned as a ground breaker in what it did show (sex and somewhat realistic torture of a nude woman).

Anyway, when you see this movie you really see a young bride during and enjoying the honeymoon phase of her marriage and that along is reason enough to view it. It is a lighthearted romp and if you find a technical mistake somewhere in it please be advised that probably nobody else really cares!! It brings up great memories for people who were teenagers during this time (like me). Of note is one of the final scenes in the movie that takes place in an airport- no metal detectors or X-Ray machines, no lines, and a beautiful architectural setting! Like the rest of the movie, it is a nostalgic look back at a golden age!

Margot (2005)

The woman who would be queen

[8/10 · 9 February 2011]

Dame Margot Fonteyn (nee Peggy Hookham) was an acclaimed dancer from England, a Prima Ballerina Assoluta no less!, who was intriguing due to a lot of her activities offstage as well as on. In her lifetime there were a couple of film biographies of her that were made and shown, but a definitive biography was not possible until after the end of her life due to privacy restrictions involving some types of information (criminal and medical). This was the first of the posthumous biographies done of her and some very unsettling information comes out about her.

I am not referring to the infamous 1967 arrest of her and Nureyev in San Franciso for being at a marijuana party. In the 21st century that is hardly considered noteworthy; even back in 1967 that arrest was considered more of an embarrassment than anything that could hurt their already illustrious careers. That episode, shown in this mainly chronological biography, is actually humorous in a way.

Of interest are the facts, not released in her life, that as an aspiring ballerina in the late 1930s she had become pregnant twice by the music director of the ballet company. Both had ended in abortions and she had been stood up at the Registry Office; expecting him to come in and marry her. There had been considerably speculation in her lifetime (and afterwards) if she had an affair with Nureyev during their partnership. She had stated they did not have an affair (probably relying on the fact that people knew he was a homosexual and therefore probably not interested in her sexually) whereas Nureyev had admitted an affair. In this biography the information was released that at age 45 she had suffered a miscarriage and had told Nureyev about it-with him then exploding with a rage not seen from him before or after in front of the rest of the dance company. I can't imagine the father could have been anybody else; Margot was married to another man but her husband had been a total quadriplegic by then for over 4 years!

Her husband was Roberto "Tito" Arias, a Panamanian politician of dubious morality. In the late 1950s he had staged an attempted coup in Panama. Margot's involvement in this coup was profound; she bought more guns for the attempt than most members of the NRA who live in the South! Certainly not something one would expect from a demure ballerina! Prior to the coup and shortly after their marriage in 1955 he had been appointed ambassador from Panama to the United Kingdom and Margot had been elevated from being a symbol of the British Arts to being an ambassador's wife- the closest she could to being a queen. Closest that is, unless she actually became a queen- which she could have been by being the wife of the ruler of Panama! The biography does not deal into her motivations with the coup attempt nor why she decided to buy a farm in Panama in later years for retirement. However, her female companions in England did think it was odd that a woman who enjoyed an elegant lifestyle in England would want to live the life of a rustic farmer's wife in Panama; particularly a farmer who was sexually impotent as well as needing around the clock care.

The biography does address a controversial issue- namely that her dance career extended far longer than normal for a ballerina; due to her involvement with the young Nureyev, but with the effect of throwing the next generation of dancers off schedule. Lynn Seymour is interviewed and indirectly admits that Fonteyn's career was extended at the expense of hers (Seymour did not want to say that directly). This extended career of Fonteyn's was done as she was indeed a crowd drawer (and those crowds were VERY wealthy) , but sadly also due to her needing the money. This led to a sad debacle where she performed at age 67!- a sad shadow of her former self. The "Man who would be King" ends on a dreary and sad note-so too does this biography of a woman who wanted to be a queen.

Cromwell (1970)

Interesting movie for American as well as UK audiences

[7/10 · 26 January 2011]

Spoiler notice necessary even though, as a film depicting historical events, everybody should already know the ultimate ending.

Yes, Virginia, there was a time that England did not have a king (or queen). This time was in the 17th century and lasted about 20 years. It was caused by a King being overbearing; so much so that (to borrow a quote from another movie) "the Parliment went to talk to the King and after they were through there was not a King anymore". The action of getting rid of the King of England and installing a new system of government is shown in this movie and it is somewhat surprising the movie was made in England and starred English actors. The English think it is virtually unpardonable to kill one of their Kings and they certainly do not like to depict such an action; I guess they do not mind depicting it as an historical event that actually occurred-which, of course, it did. The King who got the hatchet was Charles I and he is played a little too charmingly by Alec Guiness; one views Charles #1 in this movie as an unlucky figure who ruled as a benign despot only trying to do his duty whereas the historical Charles was quite unlikeable and deserved his fate.

The movie shows a revolution that is as significant in British history as the American Revolution is in U.S. history. It also shows the deep divides in the society of that time between the Catholic church and the various Protestant churches in England; sometimes it shows it all too well- a painful reminder of what happens when church and state are NOT separate. American audiences can see the seeds of their country being sown during this period.

Death of a Ghost Hunter (2007)

Get a grip on it!

[5/10 · 27 December 2010]

This is a nice film. It is not a major production, but still one can appreciate the effort that was put into it. Judging it by major productions of similar subject material I would give it an overall "3"; maybe a "4"; yet the sincereness of the producers and the actors (Ms Tindall as "Carter Simms") sort of prods me to give it a "5' rating-nice to see if you have a little free time. I do hope the actors in this movie get their "breakout" role soon and go on to major productions.

Having said that I must now address some of the viewers who have asked if this movie is a "real" (not reel) depiction of a "real" event. To those viewers I reply- Get a grip on it! This is a movie; not a documentary. Part of what they show and talk about during the movie is such as the Electronic Voice Detection and EMF search are, unfortunately, portrayed in other productions as something legitimate in the field of ghost hunting. However, the "science" of ghost hunting is not established and hardly a science as there has never been any demonstrable proof of actual ghosts. How can one hunt for something that has never been proved to actually exist? This movie shows stuff that has never been seen in reality. Even Dr. Simms indirectly alludes to this early in the movie. She is a skeptic, and has never seen a ghost despite looking for one for some years. Here we see a little glimpse of reality amid all of the fiction (fantasy actually) within the movie.

I have spent a night, alone, in a residence that had a far worse history than the house shown in this movie yet neither I, nor anybody else who worked there as far as I know, ever experienced or saw anything that correlated to anything "supernatural". There are no ghosts and no researcher has ever conclusively documented anything of the sort.

I Was Nineteen (1968)

This film is VERY deceiving.

[5/10 · 9 December 2010]

I actually wanted to give this film a "7" or "8"; yet there are some terrible problems with the entire premise of it. The story comes from the memoirs of a former Soviet soldier whom the protagonist is based upon. Filmed in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) it portrays a person with his background (born German though raised in Russia) as being somewhat unusual (which it was and still is) but nonetheless a "good" or "noble" person.

In the 1930s the communist party was at it's zenith in popularity in the United States. In that day and age it was not uncommon to meet a communist, in the United States, who did not have an accent (Jack Reed of "Reds" fame was not the only such person in the United States). This is understandable due to the horrific Great Depression. However, Communists or Socialist Workers were still a minority party in our country. A few of them "progressed" from being members of a minority party to being total lunatics and actually migrated to the Soviet Union to live and work. During the Stalin purges of the late 1930s many of them were seen running to the U.S. embassy, being chased by KGB agents, and waving their (by then) useless passports trying to find asylum with their embassy of their former country. Usually they were gunned down before they reached the embassy. A movie dealing with similar emigrants to Russia after WWII is "East/West".

Anyway, the protagonist of this film is the son of similar wackos who lived in Germany prior to emigrating to the USSR. Most Germans at that time who fled the Third Reich (such as Albert Einstein) went to the west; NOT to Russia. One really has to question the motivation of the author's parents and the burden they saddled him with (having to live in a totalitarian regime for a long time afterwards). Anyway, this kid essentially became a "freak" by being a Soviet citizen born in Germany. His parents were obvious wackos and/or weirdos.

Still, I will have to admit that as bad as the Soviets were they palled in comparison with the Third Reich. That, unfortunately, is the truth. And, it shows just how terrible that regime was. Interesting film; showing the conflict of a pretty bad system (USSR) with an utterly terrible one (war time Germany). The film shows, as other reviewers have noted, the hope for a reconciliation between post war Germany and Russia. Fair enough, except the reconciliation was to include a socialist German (ALL of Germany; not just East Germany). Fortunately, like the battle of Spandau Fortress in the film, that never happened.

The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: The Sensible Action of Lieutenant Holst (1973) Season 2, Episode 6

Good adaptation of original story

[8/10 · 20 September 2010]

This was an adaptation of a 1905 Danish detective story. One problem that is consistently noted throughout not only this series but also in other productions by British television is the portrayal of other nationalities by the English. This is certainly NOT unique to their acting system; I have seen American actors (such as Clint Eastwood and John Wayne) portray, or attempt to portray characters of other nationalities, so poorly that one starts trying to stifle one's attempt at laughing out loud. Fortunately, in this case, the cultures of Denmark and England (like their languages) are close enough that a reasonably good British actor can portray a Danish character reasonably well enough to pass muster. And, so it is in this story. Now, whether or not Catherine Schell (a Hungarian native) acted well enough to have one believe she is a native Russian aristocrat is another story.

Anyway, the basis of the print story was unusual for its time; to wit, that a conclusion that appears correct may not actually be so. I am not referring to a "false lead"; which appears quite often in detective stories (particulary the ones by A. Conan Doyle that have you-know-who appearing in them), but rather the "different interpretation" of events that is a somewhat common theme today. Example- a man whips tout a knife from his pocket and cuts another man's throat. sounds like a case of murder or attempted murder. Right? Not necessarily; when one realizes the man with the knife is a doctor and the person whose throat is cut was unable to breath to horrible swelling of his neck due to an allergic reaction to a bee sting. The cut provides a pathway for air.

This story is not as openly dramatic as an emergency tracheotomy but the stakes are as high. A great story; even with British actors acting as Danes, with a conclusion that provides food for thought.

The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: Five Hundred Carats (1973) Season 2, Episode 2

The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes meets the Old West

[9/10 · 14 September 2010]

Great production and adaptation of the original story. Whereas most of the "Rivals" stories take place in England or in Europe this one takes place in Africa! To be precise, South Africa when it was still a British colony. Cowboys existed not only in the United States but also in South America, Australia, and Southern Africa-something that most Americans are not familiar with. And, the cowboy days of Southern Africa were at least as violent and turbulent as the Gold Rush days were in the Klondike (which occurred at the same time as the setting of this story). In this case it was not gold but something even more precious-diamonds! And the largest diamond of them all- 500 carats!

The theft of this diamond from within the guarded storeroom is a total enigma. How could anybody steal it and not get caught? Is it a perfect crime? And, even if the way it was stolen could be determined, how could it be found now and the criminals brought to justice? This is the American Wild West on steroids!!

The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: Cell 13 (1973) Season 2, Episode 3

A Good Introduction to Van Dusen

[8/10 · 14 September 2010]

This is the first time we see the eminent professor and this also happens to have been the first story written by Jacques Futrelle containing Van Dusen. This story ran as a series in a Sunday supplement for a number of weeks; with readers invited to send in the guesses to the solution before the last part was published. Amazingly enough one reader was able to determine the exact solution before it was published.

This adaptation is interesting as it is the first theatrical adaptation of the professor that I can determine. I do not believe he was seen in film (or videotape) before. Of note is that Wilmer portrayed Sherlock Holmes in other plays; in fact, there are a number of actors who portray a "rival" to Holmes who also portrayed the Baker Street detective in other venues. This episode is interesting in that it is, strictly speaking, not a criminal investigation nor a "whodunit" but more of a "howdidhedoit?" It is artfully carried out and well worth viewing.

The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: Anonymous Letters (1973) Season 2, Episode 8

Good, but does not hold to the original (possible spoiler)

[8/10 · 13 September 2010]

I give this an overall "8" due to its high production values. However it must be noted that this adaptation does not follow the original story very well. Most of the adaptations do vary somewhat from the Victorian or Edwardian era original but try to stay faithful to the overall line. This one deviates considerably; showing the detective as quite a "ladies man"- whereas there was no mention of this whatsoever in the original story; due perhaps to the morality of the late Victorian age. Of note here is female nudity being displayed; something that would place this TV show in the "R" category if it were a movie. I presume this was actually broadcast open air in England in 1973- which makes it one of the earliest TV broadcasts showing female nudity. That is a salacious sideline but actually does fit in with the revised plot.

Suffice to say a lady who is married into Austrian royalty has been receiving some very disturbing anonymous letters. This upsets her greatly. In the original story her husband also receives anonymous letters but does not even pay attention to them (as he has received so many in the past). In the original story a private detective with experience in such matters is hired by the husband; only for the wife's sake. In this adaptation the husband DOES pay attention to the anonymous letters he receives and they do disturb him greatly. There are other plot differences as mentioned previously. Does NOT make it less interesting but certainly is different.

One other item of note is the overall behavior or "personage" of the acting staff. I do not claim to know, in detail, how Austrians of 1900 were-their behavior and mannerisms but I do know they did not quite act or behave as these actors portray them. That is because the actors were English and trying to portray people of a different culture and time. They give it their best; for the purposes of this presentation (open air broadcast in England in 1973) their performances are satisfactory. Still, the depiction of Trostler is something of a letdown to one who has read these stories.

This is NOT unusual; the original film adaptation (1966) of Dr. Zhivago did not portray Russians of the Revolutionary time (or probably of any other time for that matter) very accurately- probably because there was not a single Russian in any speaking role! Example is Omar Shariff who portrayed the eponymous Russian, yet Shariff is Egyptian! The performances were nevertheless adequate for the purpose of the film- adapting a Russian novel for Western audiences. Same idea and purpose for this adaptation of a turn of the 20th century Austrian "Rival of Sherlock Holmes" for British audiences.

The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes: The Secret of the Foxhunter (1973) Season 2, Episode 10

A good pre discovery role for Lisa Harrow and Derek Jacobi

[8/10 · 13 September 2010]

This was one of the later shows of the 2nd season in "The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes". There were a number of veteran actors and actresses in this show; which makes the performances of Lisa Harrow (as Beatrice Graham) and Derek Jacobi (as William Drew) much more intriguing as this was their introduction into the "big leagues" of acting. Having said that, it should be mentioned both of them had already "won their spurs" in previous roles; nonetheless this was their biggest performance up to that point.

In this episode Ms. Graham is involved with some shady going ons involving not only German espionage but, curiously enough, also the Russians. A hint is given early on about a new (secret) treaty signed between Germany and Russia and the going ons certainly involve this this secret treaty. Of note: I do not believe that such a treaty had been actually been negotiated in that era (Edwardian), but, really, which viewer really keeps track of things? Suspension of disbelief is certainly expected in this matter.

Anyway, the first half or so of this episode is William Drew trying to find out the connection. What is Ms. Graham doing? Obviously something- her entire deameanor (nervousness, wild eyes about to bug out) shows this- an excellent acting job by Lisa Harrow. Derek Jacobi portrays William Drew who, very realistically, is puzzled as much about the purpose of this entire matter as he is to what is happening. He obtains most of his information from his right hand "man" is actually a woman (governess) whose role in this story is to fill in the "weak" points of the storyline. Her role in providing female insight to the motives of Ms. Grahm is subordinate (the main purpose in the printed story by William Le Queaux) to finding out out information-depicted as being unrealistically easy but hey, it is only a story! Lisa Harrow (her red hair dyed black for this role) portrays Ms. Graham as being consistently on the point of a nervous breakdown (very realistically in such a situation). And, artfully portrays Beatrice Graham not necessarily as "good" vs "bad" but somewhat realistically ambiguous. There are some weak points in this story; but that is to be expected from trying to condense such a masterfully written tale to a 50 minute program. Despite that difficulty both actors succeed and rightfully went on to greater success in later endeavors.

Historical note: Le Queaux was the originator or at least the chief proponent of the "fourth column" idea; that is, in case England should ever go to war with Germany, a large number of hidden German supporters already in England would become active and commit numerous acts of terrorism as well as engage in espionage. In other words, there were a large number of the German enemy already in England, before the war started. When the 1914 war did come about (soon after this story was published) a hysteria developed in England that was even worse than the anti Japanesse-American hysteria in the U.S. in 1942. As it turned out, there were very few German spies in the United Kingdom during WWI and the ones that were there were notoriously ineffective.

The Mysteries of Pittsburgh (2008)

A good movie; lost

[2/10 · 19 April 2010]

This movie came so close to being a very good movie but fouled up at the end-leaving one to mourn what would have been a very good adaptation of a very good book.

It is the summer of 1983. A college graduate (Art) is trying to enjoy his last summer before he leaves Pittsburgh (his home) to become a financial broker. We find that his dad (fantastic portrayal by Nick Nolte) is an organized crime chief, of the local mob, and is proud of his son graduating and does NOT want his son to go into organized crime. The son takes a job for the summer at a local bookstore and is immediately seduced by his only slightly older female supervisor; an affair ensues. During this same period of time Art meets a stunningly attractive young blond (portrayed by Sienna Miller) who likes him; even though she already has a boyfriend (dude named Cleveland). The next day Cleveland, a tough biker type, comes to the bookstore and gives Art a deal "he cannot refuse"- which is a ride on the bike to a local abandoned factory site. At the factory site is a smokestack that still belches out clouds; even though the factory has been shut down for thirty years! Why? It is a mystery, a mystery of Pittsburgh. Why is does Cleveland turn to be actually friendly towards a potential rival? Well, that is another mystery of Pittsburgh.

The movie portrays the last summer of youthful abandon and care; set in surprisingly beautiful settings of a city that is reinventing itself from the traditional "smokestack technology" to a more "greener" environment. Yet, the problem with the movie is its unrealistic portrayal of male and female friendships. It was a very good movie; showing Sienna Miller, for example, doing some very good driving of golf balls at a party. Yet, this subplot never plays out- never explains why she is shown doing something so atypical. Loose ends, poor connections, double meanings that invoke something that is hard to believe even with the typical "suspension of disbelief" found at movies. All of these plot error and loopholes foul up the movie beyond redemption.

Friday the 13th: The Series: Coven of Darkness (1989) Season 2, Episode 26

Maria Ricossa stars in this episode

[7/10 · 10 April 2010]

This was the last episode of the 2nd season of this unexpected hit TV series. And, in this show, the guest star, Maria Ricossa, shows her great talent as the head witch of a powerful coven. During the beginning of a black mass at the very beginning of this episode she both chills and also enchants the viewer when she deliberately cuts the tip of her finger on a ceremonial witches dagger and then uses the blood to draw an upside down cross on her forehead. She performs the ceremony with such wicked mirth and an evil smile that it causes one to believe that if such head witches do exist; they perform much the same way as she acted. Her "daytime job" appearances in this episode are also quite convincing as well as beguiling. She "hit the mark" perfectly in this role and worries men like me who begin to think that there is more to your average housewife than meets the eye!!!! Maria Ricossa certainly shows her enormous talents in this episode as the coven leader.

The coven of "black witches" are the colorful group in this episode. There is a coven of "white witches" as the counter group in this episode; they are headed by a older gentlemen who is nowhere near as lively as Ricossa. Very dull and staid; they are about as active and fun filled as a senior citizens bingo game. Louise Robey (who portrays "Mickey Foster") tries to act as a white witch priestess in this episode and whoever thought of that idea should not have directed any future episodes of the series. She is eye candy but she is a RED HEAD. She is NOT a blond-which is the first criteria for any "white witch" role! She simply does not fit in as a white witch. She does not handle her role as a white witch with anywhere near the same aplomb or color as Ricossa handles the black witch/coven leader role. Ricossa was the actual star in this episode; one of the most colorful of the "bad girl" witches, and though you know the character is evil you actually start cheering for her! You can see why she became the star she is today! Great episode to watch and remember!

Naked World: America Undercover (2003 TV Movie)

A good movie about something though I really am not sure what

[7/10 · 21 March 2010]

Art and nudity have been together in the Western world for thousands of years-dating back to the Ancient Greeks who viewed the body as one of the if not the most beautiful work of art. That, at least, is the western viewpoint. Other cultures vary; not so much as to whether the body is beautiful or not but rather as to when it is appropriate to display the body to all. Mr. Tunick, in this film, goes around the world to try to show the "body is beautiful" viewpoint belongs worldwide. And, to a significant degree, he succeeds. Actually, his film could be viewed not so much as a film about the human body or nakedness but rather about cultural differences overall. For example, his ease of obtaining volunteers in London versus the problems he had in Ireland shows the cultural differences still existing between those societies.

Particular mention and praise should be made to him going to a post apartheid South Africa and attempting to recruit (mostly) black models. Virtually all of the models in his previous photo shoots have been white; and this is certainly understandable in places such as Russia (only Black Russian I know of is a drink!). However, other peoples with much different skin tones exist and by going to South Africa he certainly attempted to diversify his selection. I commend him for that even though he seemed to be less than totally successful in that endeavor.

The only part of the show that I really object to is the Antarctica session. He wanted to do a worldwide show and, in that regards, I understand his decision to go to the Antarctic. But, I still object for a couple of reasons. The first one, most importantly, is that the Antarctic does not have any indigenous human population-the one part of the landed world that does not. The second objection is more of an artistic nature, and that is due to the environment a nude human being is in no way "natural" in Antarctica. What we see in this movie is the coastal region in SUMMER; the most benign area and time of the year for that entire continent and it is still way too cold for people to venture out without insulating clothes. The models are nude for just a few minutes at a time; yet it is obvious that they are at their limits even then and certainly could not survive for much longer in a nude condition. Nude humans and the Antarctic are therefore oxymorons; they do not go together and Antarctica does not belong in Spencer Tunick's portfolio.

Having mentioned that I will say that overall this film is a good example of artistic figure studies.

The Edge of Love (2008)

Potential hit that turned out to be a dud

[4/10 · 26 August 2009]

After I saw this I concluded that it was most likely a chick flick; afterward I found out that Keira's mother wrote the screenplay so that pretty much confirmed it. However, a chick flick can have some appeal to men; this one does not and really seems not to appeal that well either to women (looking at the dismal box office receipts). One item that I believe both genders agree upon is the stupidity of the the scene, in the movie, whereby an analogy is made between the pain of childbirth to the pain of a limb being amputated w/o anesthesia. Though men do not undergo the pain of childbirth we understand that it is a painful process; yet it is a natural pain whereas an amputation certainly is not! Women understand this even better. I suspect some woman was trying to make a feminist statement that is in poor taste. In fact, a lot of things in this movie are in very poor taste. Though movies nowadays are known for having poor taste this one really "excels" in that department. This could have been a good movie that shows the struggles of Dylan Thomas during WWII; and how strong the sentiment was against men who somehow managed to avoid serving in the military then. Keira's screen writing mother tries to show how this sentiment was used against Dylan but really muddles this. Instead we get a chick flick about how two young mothers bond together; sort of. In a way. Perhaps. Somehow. Of note is the fact that a soldier (the husband of the friend of Dylan's wife) is sent back home after serving in combat; yet it is unclear if the war has ended!! A lot of things about this movie are similarly unclear; and though I have stated that already I will do so again as it seems to be the central motif of this mess.

Lolita (1962)

A premonition of the future; great film to look at the past

[8/10 · 3 May 2009]

This is a Stanley Kubrick movie; though perhaps not his most major work it is still, nonetheless, a great movie. For most movie directors this quality work would have been the zenith of a career; for Kubrick it was just another stepping stone in his directorial progression! Kubrick was only 32 years of age when he directed this masterpiece; years younger than all but one of the primary actors that he directed in this film. The fact that he was the undisputed director and given the due respect by these performers shows his already acknowledged talent.

All the actors, with the possible exception of James Mason, turn in stellar performances. Mason probably wanted to, but seemed to be uncertain as to how far he could "push the envelope" with his part of a "dirty old man" in that day and age. Some commentators have mentioned the constraints faced by Kubrick due to the Hays Moral Code. However, what most people fail to realize is that in that day and age (and I was there and remember it) the entire subject was something that most people did not like to talk about or even think of. Society was much more formal back then, and the actions and/or attitudes shown on the majority of TV sit coms today would not have been tolerated in most of society. Or, at least tolerated in movies or TV. Please remember, back in 1962 the term "Gay" meant happy and joyful. The term "homosexual" was not even allowed to be mentioned on TV; let alone allow a person of that sort to be depicted. People, of course, knew about such individuals and "dirty old men"; but the attitude was "Why show that kind of stuff on TV?" Most people would have, grudgingly perhaps, admitted that there was a place on TV for artistic nudity, but outright vulgarity was not tolerated whatsoever! Strangely, even in our day and age artistic nudity is still not allowed on open air TV, but vulgarity is and in abundance. Go figure.

So, Kubrick had to present this movie properly; no easy task. He did so despite an, at times, awkward performance by James Mason. Compensating for this were incredible performances by Shelly Winters (she acted the role of a romance and sex starved matronly widow that I would not be surprised if, in fact she was- at least sex starved). By the way, the bedroom scene of her with James Mason, though innocent by our standards today, was almost scandalous by the standards of that day and age. Please remember that in the Dick van Dyke show of that era the husband and wife had separate beds in the same bedroom!

Peter Sellers was absolutely magnificent in this pre Inspector Jacques Clouseau role and one can certainly see why Kubrick was so eager to use him again in "Doctor Strangeglove". Also of great interest was the United States of 1962; when seat belts were not in cars and gas stations were full service. A great look at a past America; shows that not all high school dances ended in a drunken or drug induced sexual orgy. A time when typewriters were used to type letters; not word processors. Actually. one really has to be of a certain age or even older to fully appreciate the nuances in this film though even the younger (under age 45) viewer can appreciate most of it. By the way, Mason got over his "jitters" over showing a dirty old man and a few years later was lead male actor in "Age of Consent"; showing his renewed male appreciation of the lovely and (then young) Helen Mirren. Older man chasing a naked young filly on a tropical beach! A great movie, and so is this one.

Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon (2005)

Great film, though misleading

[8/10 · 14 January 2009]

This movie should be seen along with "In the Shadow of the Moon" as well as "For All Mankind". The last one I mentioned, "For All Mankind", came out around 1992 and the producers actually had a very hard time making it due to a limited budget as well as limited interest overall at that time. It should be mentioned that after the first moon landing interest by most people quickly faded. In fact, by the time of the last landing, Apollo 17, public interest was so low that NASA supposedly paid the networks to show the moonwalks of Cernan and Schmidt. I do remember that even then the moonwalks were shown in split screen along with college and pro football games so as not to alienate the average TV viewer (please remember that this was long before we had all the cable channels and home video recorders). The moon walks were really a disappointment; that is why I, for one, do not expect to see any again for a long time. Some other country may put a man or men on the moon to show the world they can do so, but it will probably be a one time deal for publicity only. The possibility of a moon base in our lifetime is rather low.

Which is why this film is so great. It actually revives interest in these old missions by showing details that were not shown when they first aired. The depiction of the landing process for Apollo 15 was fantastic; and now I can see how the astronauts went through the landing procedure. This film even provides a better look on the Apollo 11 moonwalk-something that my generation could not quite as well with that black & white TV camera that the astronauts used on that very historic night. Oh, we saw a lot that night, but the overall perspective was missing. That is what is so great about this film. The dangers faced by the Apollo 15 moon walkers (falling down into the canyon) were not understood very well by NASA, let along the average TV viewer of that time (such as me). This film shows the "hidden" dangers quite well!! Much more exciting that way than when we were viewing the moon walk live!

It is a great film. I was a teenager when the walks took place and quite frankly I could live the rest of my life quite happily without seeing another one occurring. The problem is that kids the age of my grandkids did not see those walks and nobody really knows when they will be able to see one. Therefore, this film is great as it shows them what we saw; in even better color and detail. It is misleading as the quotes from the astronauts were not actually read by those people; the movie implies the voices heard were those astronauts. In reality, the quotes were being read by professional actors. To see the actual astronauts and hear them speak you need to watch, "In the Shadow of the Moon". Still, this is a 40 minute movie well worth seeing; I certainly enjoyed it. Enjoyed it even better than watching some of those moon walks when they were actually happening!!!!!

The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl (1993)

A good but not candid biography

[6/10 · 26 December 2008]

This is a a pretty good biography of Leni Riefenstahl; done in her dotage- about ten years before she died when she was relatively still quite active. Though the film does not really emphasize this, Leni was VERY active for a 90 year old woman and ultimately lived to be 101! Now, having mentioned that it should also be noted that about 80% of this movie covers the work she did before she reached the age of 43. Imagine a biographical movie of Bob Hope (her closest contemporary) that profiles his work from age 24 to 42 (end of WWII) and then passes over most of what he did afterwords until he was 90! One would certainly miss a lot of good biography! In the case of Riefenstahl the years from her early 40s to her early 60s are not of much interest, biography wise, as she was inactive due to one fact: Her side had lost the war. If the Allied side had lost the war then I think Leni Riefenstahl would have been quite active and well known throughout most of the world during that time.

Since the side she was on did lose the war Leni was very hesitant to say that she really supported the National Socialist movement in Germany. When confronted with some written facts concerning her involvement (such as entries in Goebbels diary) she either denies it, or when she cannot deny something (such as her congratulatory telegraph to Hitler when German forces marched into Paris in 1940) she offers a different "interpretation" of why she sent the telegram. Obviously she was lying then, but I do believe she was truthful to some degree about her ambivalence towards the National Socialist movement. Suffice to say that there are some pointed questions directed at her (in her dotage) during this documentary, and she does try to answer most of them.

For the movie maker enthusiast there are some real good segments on how she (and her workers) did the filming of Nazi marches and Olympic sporting events as well as in some of her theatrical released films. The biography makers seem to give her at least grudging admiration for her work and accomplishments. I am of the same opinion myself.

Perhaps the final judgment of her (if not of her work) lies with the "De Nazification" Panel that reviewed her during the post war era. They came to the conclusion (which I, for one, support) that though she was not a Nazi; she was definitely a Nazi sympathizer. And, it would be hard to refute that finding. All things considered that was not necessarily that terrible of a finding (at least for most people living in Germany then), but the horrified look on her face (in a photograph taken when the finding was announced) showed that she realized, at that very moment, that her career as a movie maker was finished. Had she been working for the equally repulsive dictator Joseph Stalin a finding that she was a Communist sympathizer would not have hurt her as much as the Russians were on the winning side. But, the side she did work for lost the war, and she lost her career as a result of that.

Slogan (1969)

Basically shows the real life romance between the two

[8/10 · 16 December 2008]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS (though I doubt if anybody really cares) This was a nice movie; essentially it shows the love between Serge and Jane. I get the feeling that when it developed, in real life, the director decided to make it the ONLY plot theme instead of the main one. Well, fair enough and when Jane was shown seated, nude, on the bath tub, the last thing I was concerned about was with whatever plot was occurring at that point. In fact, that scene is why I gave the movie an "8" instead of a "6" or "7"; which is what it would ordinarily enjoy.

Still, once in a while other characters appear and reappear during the movie (other than Serge's wife I mean) and I think they were supposed to represent some sort of plot that was intended, but never shown. There is a scene, early in the movie, where he makes some objects disappear with a snap of his fingers; something that can be done in a TV advertisement easily enough and Serge somehow had this ability in the movie. It was performed once and never again. It is somewhat at variance with the rest of the film, and probably represents a plot line that was never followed up.

One thing that hurt the movie (concerning "suspension of disbelief") was the idea that Serge would let Jane go; instead of marrying her. What man would actually do that to a 23 year old beauty? It is sorta stretching suspension of disbelief that a man would do so, and, in fact, Serge did not (in real life). One other matter that seems at variance with the primary idea of the movie is the wife that Serge leaves for "his homebreaker"; as he describes Jane Birkin. The wife is actually a very attractive woman and Serge should have shown more conflict about leaving her for the equally attractive, but younger, woman.

Like I said, in real life a romance developed between Serge and Jane during the filming so I presume the director decided to concentrate on that; even at the expense of the believability of the movie. Can't blame him; it actually makes the movie even more entertaining.