funnystrange.com

August 31 movie: Strut! Documentary about the Philadelphia Mummer's Parade. Georg and I agreed that this wasn't the best in term of movie-making. It had some structural problems: three false endings, for one thing. And they offered frustratingly brief hints to issues from the parade's past (for instance, blackface was common until it was banned in the 60s, and women were excluded until I think the 70s, which the movie alludes to but never says outright).

Still, we both thought it well worth watching because it did such a good job of capturing the Mummer experience. If you've never seen the Mummers, it can be summed up in a few words: String bands. Ostrich feathers. Sequins. Elaborate musical numbers. Longshoremen in drag.

I learned some things, for instance there are apparently several different styles of mummer's strut. I had no idea. They had a guy demonstrate three styles: Polish-American strut, Italian-American strut, and string band strut. The kind I learned was the Italian style, which he said is favored by the comics. It's also the simplest of the three, or maybe I just think that because it's the one I know.

Also, I didn't know that the comics march to New Orleans-style jazz, not string bands. (They don't show the whole parade down here, and only sometimes show any of it, and so it's been decades since I've gotten to see the comics.) They interviewed a jazz band which marches with the comics every year, and I have to say they were terrific. Really talented.

They hardly showed any of the fancies in the movie, I guess because the fancies are the least, what's the word, the least dynamic part of the parade. I like the fancies, though. My least favorite part of the Mummer's Parade is the fancy brigades. Because to me, the fancy brigades are just like the string bands, except no string band. Also the fancy brigades don't have to walk the parade route so their props are much more elaborate, more like sets. Which, if you like big props I guess that's an improvement. Personally, I like the fact that everything in a string band's show had to travel the whole route. (I'm guessing the string bands are allowed to bring their props on a truck. If they have to push and/or carry everything, that would be hardcore.)

I highly recommend this movie if you've ever heard of the Mummers. It's worth it for the archive footage of historical parades alone. And there were a couple of segments showing truly spectacular still photos. If the director had been half as talented as the photographer, this would have been an Oscar-worthy documentary.

There was one hysterical anecdote from the movie: a member of one of the string bands (I forget which one, Ferko maybe?) is talking about how one year their club got in trouble with the cops and their captain got arrested. Apparently the parade route goes through some ritzy neighborhoods, and the city hadn't thought to put in port-a-johns along the route. And the people in the string band were relieving themselves on sidewalks and yards along the way, which had the residents in an uproar. The mummer calmly explained, "You can't march 3 miles and drink beer the whole way and not have to pee. It's not our fault." That's inarguable logic right there.

August 30 movie: The Doctor Takes a Wife. Romantic comedy starring Loretta Young and Ray Milland as two professionals (a writer and a medical school professor, respectively) who have hate at first sight. When a rumor gets started that they're married, they discover that it would be bad for their careers to deny it, so they pretend it's true. This was a good movie. Not great, but good, genuinely funny. Good supporting work by Reginald Gardiner (who played Noel Coward in The Man Who Came to Dinner), Gail Patrick and Edmund Gwenn. For once Gail Patrick isn't a villain. Just a poor crass sap who's destined to lose the guy.

The best part of the movie may be the title of Loretta Young's book: Spinsters Aren't Spinach, a wildly successful self-help book for single women.

August 29 movie: Monkey Business. The perfect pick-me-up after the solemnity of Solaris the other night. I think Monkey Business is one of the funniest Marx Brothers movie. It's got the Maurice Chevalier sequence, and Harpo in the punch and judy show, and Groucho hiding in the gangster's closet. I've also got Duck Soup to watch this weekend.

One odd thing about this movie is the recurring theme music: it's the same music used in Rope. They play it in a different key, I think, and Farley Granger gets more and more twitchy as he plays, and the effect is fairly creepy. It's strange to hear that same creepy music played so cheerfully by Chico Marx.

August 26 movie: Solaris. I probably should have waited a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days, to watch the commentary. But I couldn't stop thinking about the movie and really wanted to get some perspective on it. Plus I wanted to get the movie on its way back to Netflix.

I had heard that the commentary was outstanding, and it was. Criterion seems to always have wonderful commentaries. This one was done by the co-authors of a Tarkovsky biography. As you might expect, they provided deep, thoughtful commentary, answered many of my questions, and many others I hadn't even thought of. And there was an unexpected bonus: the commentary narrators had a great sense of humor. For example, at one point they quote Tarkovsky as saying that Solaris would have been better if he had dropped the science fiction element. The narrator drily observes, "that raises the question, what would be left?"

They explained the lack of special effects: partly Tarkovsky's lack of interest in the "science" part of science fiction, and partly the severe budget restrictions put on Solaris by the Soviet government. They said the budget wasn't big to start with, and was cut in half by the end of the project. The low budget also put Tarkovsky very short on film. Which meant that most scenes were filmed in only one take. That is astonishing.

They also explained the only part of the movie that I didn't enjoy: that interminable scene of Burton driving in and out of tunnels. Due to the budget issues, Tarkovsky decided to show "the city of the future" by filming at the World's Fair in Japan. But it took so long to get the passport issues worked out that he missed the World's Fair. So he filmed driving around the streets of Japan instead. At that time it was difficult to get permission to leave the Soviet Union. He had to use the footage, and so much of it, to justify the trip. Really fascinating to think about making a movie -- not just a movie but a monumental achievement -- under such crazy restrictions and issues.

The rest of my observations are spoilerish and so I will put everything behind a cut.

August 26 movie: Born Yesterday. I've resisted watching this for years. Mainly because I saw the remake, and it was so very bad, and it put me off the whole concept. TCM showed the original on Saturday during Broderick Crawford day -- and by the way, kudos to TCM for doing the best "Summer Under the Stars" they've done in years. It had gotten pretty tedious, nothing but big, overplayed movies by the biggest stars, day after day, August after August. Well this year they highlighted some lesser-known actors. Which made "Summer Under the Stars" much more interesting.

Anyway. They featured Broderick Crawford on Saturday, and what the heck, I decided to give Born Yesterday a try. And it was great! Really funny. Judy Holliday was great, and William Holden, well, I'd watch him read the phone book. I've seen plenty of movies that were less interesting than William Holden reading the phone book. I concede that the movie was bit preachy, but you know, it's nice to see some glorification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A refreshing change of pace.

August 25 movie: Solaris. Wow. Didn't I just say that I most enjoy science fiction about ideas? Boy howdy, did I get my wish with Solaris.

It should be no surprise that I thought it was brilliant. Best movie I've seen in ages. An extreme illustration of the principle that big special effects are not necessary for a science fiction movie. Solaris is an intense, immersive experience with almost no special effects. The set design of the space station is magnificent. A huge place, nearly empty, neglected and littered with debris. It speaks volumes about the lost aspirations of the project, and the mental unraveling of the remaining scientists.

The movie is extremely atmospheric. The set design and the soundtrack work together so well. So much so that to be honest, I wish I hadn't watched it while Georg was out of town. There was something very creepy about the space station. Cree-pee. I had to keep reminding myself that it wasn't Alien, a monster wasn't going to leap out of anyone's stomach and start eating people. Which, of course, I didn't know for sure. But I figured that if it was actually a scifi horror movie I would have heard that.

I only knew the barest plot outline going in: it takes place on a space station, and the main character's dead wife appears to him. Of course, plot isn't really the point. The movie is a complex meditation on, well on a lot of things. Identity, the subjective nature of truth, emotion vs. reason, guilt and regret, the desire to return to the past and undo past mistakes. Lots to think about. Right now I'm thinking about the irony of Kris' wife, or of her manifestation I should say. From the beginning she knows something is wrong, but at first she thinks she's has amnesia or epilepsy or something. As she spends more time "alive," she develops enough mentally and emotionally to realize what she is. The more real she becomes, the more she understands the unreality of her own existence. At first Kris is so repelled by her that he tries to kill her, and by the end he needs her more than she needs him. [Kind of a spoiler: In trying to undo a tragic loss from the past, Kris causes the same tragedy to happen all over again. This same idea shows up in the Time Machine remake, of all places, except in that movie it's a hilarious failure.]

Comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey are obvious of course. But while I was watching it I was reminded more of the Kore-eda movie Maborosi. The slow, meditative pace, the dreamlike unreal quality, and theme of a spouse's suicide. With very little narrative, almost no pans and almost all long shots, Maborosi was much more distancing than Solaris. It was more like viewing a series of paintings than like watching a movie. At the time I thought it boring. (I much preferred After Life by the same director.) Though I found myself thinking about it for weeks afterwards. I wonder if I would enjoy Maborosi better now.

One thing confused me: After finishing Solaris I read a few reviews, a couple of which described the ending as "ambiguous" or a "twist". To me the ending seemed to be fairly straightforward, and seemed the natural conclusion of the story. Beautiful, lyrical, and not a surprise. Was my reading of the end overly simplistic? I'd like to watch it again with the commentary on before sending it back.

I'm also wondering whether I should watch the remake of Solaris. It's by Soderbergh, so I wouldn't expect a stinker like so many science fiction remakes. I heard it was more of a love story. I wonder if anyone who has seen both can comment on the relative merits.

August 25 movie: Small Town Girl. Janet Gaynor plays, believe it or not, a small town girl. Bored with her ordinary, predictable life (the kind of life usually depicted as idyllic in old movies), she impulsively accepts a ride from rich townie Robert Taylor. They spend the evening together and when he drunkenly suggests marriage, she sees it as her ticket out and accepts. Come next morning, he wakes up sober and not happy to be married. Plus he already has a fiance. Uh-oh!

The movie is charming, I enjoyed it a lot. Only one quibble: Gaynor's boring small town life comes complete with a boring boyfriend, played by Jimmy Stewart. Which, hello? What in the what now? Jimmy Stewart is crazy about her and she can't wait to get away? What is she, some kind of freak?

August 25 movie: My Sister Eileen. Rosalind Russell and Janet Blair star as two sisters who move from Columbus, Ohio to New York to pursue their dreams of being a writer and an actress, respectively. They end up in a crummy basement apartment in Greenwich Village and interact with a series of colorful characters. Much of the plot focuses on Russell's attempts to get her stories published in The Manhatter magazine. (Three guesses what magazine that represents, and the first two don't count.) Brian Aherne costars as an editor at The Manhatter who helps Russell get published and falls for her along the way. He's kind of self-absorbed and annoying, but he means well and he loves Russell's writing so I guess it's okay.

The best part of the movie is the interaction with the colorful characters who populate the Village. From the slightly dishonest landlord who fancies himself an undiscovered genius painter, to the former college football player turned househusband, to the neighborhood cop who marks the sisters as troublemakers, to the Portuguese merchant marines who start a riot by dancing the conga through the streets. The supporting characters are weird and funny and just barely stay on the right side of too wacky for my taste. No mean feat, as wacky colorful characters annoy me immensely if I'm not in the mood for it.

Wow, I just googled this movie to look up Janet Blair's name, and found out that it's based on a true story! There really were two sisters named Ruth and Eileen who really did move from Columbus to the Village. Ruth really did write a series of stories called "My Sister Eileen" about their experiences, and really did sell the stories to The New Yorker. The stories became a Broadway play, then this movie, then another movie (starring Janet Leigh as sister Eileen, which was a good choice as Janet Blair strongly resembles her), then a TV series. I can't believe I never heard of it before.

August 24 movie: Copacabana. This was exactly what I wanted. A silly, funny musical starring Groucho Marx and Carmen Miranda. She's a singer, he's her agent, they're broke and trying to break into the business. Groucho gets her not one but two contracts at the Copacabana, as herself and as a French chanteuse named "Mademoiselle Fifi" who wears a veil. Most of the movie follows them trying to juggle the two acts (and Carmen trying to fight off admirers) without anyone finding out about the deception. Andy Russell costars as another singer at the Copacabana. Coincidentally, I just found out last week during the Latin a la Lounge show that he was Mexican American, born in California to Mexican parents. His biggest song, "Amor," was partly in Spanish.

August 23 movie: The Women. I never miss an opportunity to watch this. Everyone in it is terrific. Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Mary Boland, Joan Fontaine, Paulette Goddard, and especially Rosalind Russell. Too bad Virginia Weidler is so awful. She has one good scene, trading barbs with Joan Crawford, then she gets all saccharine again.

August 19 movie: Meet the Stewarts. William Holden and Frances Dee star as a newlywed couple from different economic backgrounds -- she's rich and pampered, he's an ordinary working guy -- who split up over budgeting, then get back together. They seem to have no business being together at all, but then somehow they magically transform into people who can sensibly compromise and economize. If only real life was like that.

August 18 movie: Salt & Pepper. Sammy Davis Jr. and Peter Lawford star as co-owners of a hip, happening nightclub in London's Soho who get caught up in a plot to overthrow the British government. This movie is bad. Deliriously bad. Gloriously bad. I loved it.

August 12 movie: Love Crazy. William Powell and Myrna Loy usually star in sophisticated, arch comedies like the Thin Man series. Here they go slapstick. Way, way slapstick. Powell pratfalls, gets his head stuck in an elevator door, hangs upside down in a tree, and wears drag. I still enjoyed it. The part of Ralph Bellamy was played by Jack Carson.

August 10 movie: Hot Fuzz. Based on the description alone, I should have hated this movie. But I love Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I loved Sean of the Dead, and I loved this too. We had a great time picking out the many visual references to classic movies (some of them, I should say; I'm sure we missed many). At one point near the end I think I saw a reference to Empire of the Sun!

Tonight at dinner Pam asked me, apropos of nothing, what I look for in a science fiction movie. I don't know what prompted the question, but it's a good one.

I told her that what I look for is ideas. A good science fiction movie has interesting ideas, and explores the implications of those ideas. A bad science fiction movie has no interesting ideas. Or worse, starts with an interesting idea and abandons it in favor of a generic action movie plot. Paycheck is a particularly egregious example of the latter, and there are countless others.

A good example of the former is Gattaca. By objective standards, it's not that great of a movie. I love it nonetheless, because the story is so thoughtful. I've seen it several times and would happily watch it again. The Rod Taylor version of The Time Machine is another wonderful movie about ideas, which I forgot to mention to Pam. As I've written here before, The Time Machine is one of my favorite science fiction movies, if not my very favorite. Which makes the stupidity of the Guy Pierce version all the more sad.

It's really not about the special effects for me. Effects have their purpose, they can be impressive, beautiful and/or exciting. When used well they can create a sense of immersing yourself in another world: The Lord of the Rings for example. But the effects have to serve the story, not the other way around. The Time Machine proved that a science fiction movie can be engaging without expensive special effects. (I know it was a long time ago, but I think the stop-motion effects in The Time Machine were not state of the art even for their time.) Gattaca goes even further; in fact I can't remember a single effect in the entire movie. There's a scene where Ethan Hawke longingly watches a spaceship take off, but I can't remember if you can see that it's a spaceship, or if it could have been actual footage of a plane overhead. Either way, the effect is clearly not the point of the scene.

On the other hand, I have no desire to see an sf movie with impressive effects and a weak story. Like, for example, Star Wars episodes 1, 2 or 3. Haven't seen them, don't really care if I ever do. I guess I've lost my tolerance for movies that rush from one explodo-fest set piece to the next. I want science fiction to give me something to think about.

So what do you look for in a science fiction movie?

August 1 movie: Test Pilot. According to this movie, back in the 1930s the military hired hotshot pilots to find out the limits of airplane technology by going up and flying the new planes until they failed, then crash landing or bailing out, if they could. Is this true? It seems like throwing your best pilots into a job with such a high mortality rate wouldn't be the most efficient way of doing things.

In any case, this risky career is the setting for an interesting psychological drama with Clark Gable as the pilot, Myrna Loy as the girl who falls in love with him and Spencer Tracy as the loyal mechanic/copilot/best friend. The movie kind of made me feel sad because Gable and Loy are clearly supposed to be together, and the actors have tremendous chemistry, but I felt like Loy's character would have been happier with Spencer Tracy. He understands her a lot better than Gable does, and his temperament seems better suited to her. But there's no sexual tenson between them at all (Tracy's character is almost a heterosexual "gay best friend"). Much of the movie is about Loy finding out that the qualities which made Gable so attractive after a day's acquaintance, also made him not a very good husband. The ending is pat and a bit unconvincing. But it's classic Hollywood; they had to have a happy ending.

July 1 movie: A Date with Judy. Now this is the perfect movie for staying home sick. A silly little musical with Jane Powell and Elizabeth Taylor as high school girls who fight over "older man" (about 24, I think) Robert Stack. How can you not love a movie in which the B plot features Carmen Miranda secretly teaching Wallace Beery to dance the rhumba so he can surprise his wife at their anniversary party. But the burning question is, will he learn how to rhumba in time? Will he?

August 1 movie: Ivanhoe. I went home sick yesterday, which sucked, but at least I got to watch some movies. I've seen this many times & I'm always happy to see it again. The battle scene at the castle and the big single combat scene at the end are extremely well staged. The cast is terrific: Robert Taylor, Joan Fontaine, Elizabeth Taylor and especially George Sanders. I love George Sanders.

July 29 movie: Singing in the Rain. What a delight this movie is. I never miss an opportunity to watch it. This time I found out that Rita Moreno has a small part as Lina Lamott's friend & fellow actress Zelda. Her character must have been based on Clara Bow; she was called "The Zip Girl."

July 29 movie: Strike Me Pink. I said that the movie with Cary Grant and the dancing caterpillar was the silliest movie I had ever seen, but now I'm not so sure. This movie featured Eddie Cantor managing an amusement park and trying to fend off mobsters who want to install crooked slot machines in the park. The movie gets more and more ridiculous and slapstick, until eventually (as Georg put it) it became a live action Bugs Bunny cartoon. All it lacked was a robot girl bunny. Instead of the robot girl bunny it had Ethel Merman, as kind of a villain! That was a shocker.