Change Your Image
feliceedenbaker
Reviews
The Andy Griffith Show: Opie the Birdman (1963)
Episode teaches accountability & responsibility - curious how they sourced the dead bird though?
Like other reviewers here, I think this episode taught accountability and responsibility. It also taught about the importance of being able to know when it is time to let go. It's one of the most memorable Andy Griffith Show episodes, and I think it's even a good one for children ages 8+ to see as well. I'm curious however, about how they sourced the dead bird (that was impacted by Opie's slingshot). Did the producers somehow find the bird already dead? I hope they didn't kill the bird intentionally for the purpose of the show. The bird looks like a real dead bird, it doesn't seem like a fake one, so I would like to know about its source.
The Alfred Hitchcock Hour: Where the Woodbine Twineth (1965)
Pay attention to the black maid Suse and the fact that she understands what is happening with Eva
Suse knows what's up with the doll. Also take a closer look at one of the last scenes, where she leaves the misbehaving Eva with a full, lavish dinner of chicken and dumplings, milk and a nice slice of her favorite pie. Then as Suse closes the door, she asks Eva, "You're not mad at me, are you Eva". Eva is a child, who was also misbehaving, there's no need for Suse to be trying to spoil her, or to ask her if she is mad at her. That seemed shockingly out of place. Suse, even as a black woman during those times, has more authority over that child than what she is actually exercising. It's clear that Suse is culturally aware of what that doll is, and wants to get on Eva's good side to avoid the spiritual consequences of the Voodoo doll. Also Suse is all smiles while she is asking Eva if she is mad at her, but as she heads down the stairs her face clearly changes to serious by contrast. This is a nice detail that is not explicitly explained in the episode, but it's very clear to me.
Ladri di biciclette (1948)
Haven't been able to stop thinking about this movie since my college film class
I share the sentiments of many other reviewers here. I find so much beauty in the simplicity of the story line, which nevertheless also consists of complex and timeless issues. I have never been able to forget this movie. Here are some aspects of it that I think of often:
- The role of the seer. I sometimes think maybe Antonio shouldn't have teased his wife about visiting her after the woman predicted he would get a job. Whatever your beliefs are about such things, for the purpose of the movie, that part makes me wonder.
- The role of the family. In Italy, and I suppose other Latin cultures especially, loyalty to your own family sometimes surpasses objective logic. Think of the thief's mother's defense of him. She has to know her son is possibly not totally innocent, especially if the whole family lives together in one room. Something about her behavior tells me that she is also covering for him in spite of her better knowledge. You also see the old man that the thief underpays (not sure what the payment is for, probably a cut for some crime or favor), yet the old man's instinct is to pretend he doesn't know anything about the thief when Antonio asks. This theme, of family and friends covering each other's wrongdoings points to why the thief has grown to confidently be the way he is. With this blood is thicker than water mindset, no problematic behavior is uncovered and corrected - it is nurtured and allowed to fester and get worse. If you apply this same theme on a larger scale in terms of government and bureaucracy, you can see why certain societies are prone to corruption.
- Issues of bureaucracy. If you look at this objectively, there's even a problem with the stupid job Antonio gets gluing posters to a wall. Antonio claims that the pay for it would allow the family to be comfortable with a small allowance in addition. But the bottomline is that he is just sticking movie posters to a wall. It's almost as of in this poverty-stricken setting, the government employment office is making up jobs, almost like a sort of a disguised welfare. Perhaps knowing that people don't want to feel as if they are on welfare, but they can't be left jobless either, so the government seeks to fabricate jobs to address the issue. You also get issues of bureaucratic indifference, such as the police administrator who flippantly takes a record of the crime submitted by Antonio, but has no other suggestions for him or words of support (especially since he is eager to hang out with his buddies at a last-minute shindig). Or the police officer who offers to search the thief's mother's apartment, but doesn't search it properly, just looks under the obvious places like the beds (how many of you saw the blanket apparently covering something at the far rear of the room? I'm not talking about the uncle's car tires, which were hidden to the left of the entrance to the room, I'm talking about the blanket covering up something in the far rear). The police officer spends most of the time talking about the status quo, which is great, at least he's showing some sympathy to Antonio. But his search effort is pathetic. The police officer is almost like a case in point. A little off-topic, but it also makes me think about the seer's words (either you will find it - the bike - suddenly, or you won't find it at all). And as soon as Antonio leaves the seer, he spots the thief. Who knows if he might have ended up finding the bike after all if the police officer had searched the thief's apartment more thoroughly.
- Evil eye. A concept familiar to many countries globally, including Italy. It's the belief that when something good happens to you, and you have something that others want, you need to take steps to protect against evil eye, or else other people's jealousy can intercept and cause bad luck. When the employment officer called on Antonio for the job, think of all the men waiting directly behind asking "what about me!", or eager to take his job when he mentioned that his bike was at the pawn shop. Something to think about when you consider the stream of bad luck that ensued after Antonio got the job.
- Theme of the bad guys getting all the support, while heaven forbid you slip up once. It's pretty obvious in the movie that every time Antonio needs help, he only gets very sparse, if at all any, help. The thief, a true crook, has the support of what seems like everybody in his neighborhood at the drop of a hat. The thief even has the support of the old man he underpays at the plaza. Antonio slips up once at the end and steals a bike - which is very out of character for him - and a crowd of people including the bike owner successfully grab hold of him. Not at all condoning Antonio's actions at the end, as his desperate act was obviously wrong, but just pointing out the theme of the imbalance of support.
- Some alternatives. Could Antonio have looked for alternatives after losing the bike? Of course the employment officer said he needed the bike, but what if he had tried going on foot for a while and wait to see if he gets fired. It seems to me that even though the workers each had a bike, they were still carrying the ladders by hand, while the pails of glue were being awkwardly supported by a well-placed hand on the handlebars. Walking with these items might have been easier. Also how many different walls would need to be poster-covered, and how far away would those walls be from each other? Reminds you of those job listings containing some unnecessary qualifications. Finally, Antonio's son Bruno worked at a gas station. Perhaps he could have taken a moment to talk to Bruno's boss and see if maybe he himself had a bike tucked away somewhere that he wasn't using during the day, and give it back to him at the end of each day when he went to pick up Bruno? Just some food for thought. Sometimes we can get stuck in a bit of tunnel vision and not consider all the options at hand.
- Rich people aren't always the bad guys. Yes they seem to most often look out for their own interests, but sometimes in doing so, they provide a trickle down effect that may benefit the lower classes (although paying more of their fair share of taxes, and losing access to other ways of cheating the system might be even more beneficial, but I'm not going there right now for the purpose of this review). Think of the job that Ricci got putting up movie posters. The stupid job paid fairly well and more than it should have because most likely an American movie company was funding it (actress Rita Hayworth is featured on the single poster we get to see). Finally, in the end, the bike owner of the bike Antonio tries to grab seems like a rich guy. Though he initially calls for Antonio to be sent to the police, he sees the child Bruno and has a change of heart. Sure, another rich guy in the same situation might not give a damn and demand that Antonio get his just dues. But it still points to the fact that the wealthy cannot always be blamed for every problem in society.
I'm sure I can find other aspects of this movie that I think of from time to time, but the ones I listed are the ones I often ponder.
I am a true fan, this movie gives me a lot to think about. Thanks for reading.