Noir Watch: The Window (1949)

Watched:  04/02/2025

Format:  TCM on DVR

Viewing:  First

Director:  Ted Tetzlaff

Noir meets The Boy Who Cried Wolf when a 10 year old kid, sleeping on a balcony in a NYC tenement, sees his neighbors murder a guy through a crack in the blind.  

It's a simple premise, but with the age of the protagonist - ably played by Disney star* Bobby Driscoll - the set up is deeply effective.  The carefree/ consequence-free world of childhood collides headlong into the powerlessness of childhood when everyone wants to explain away what you saw with your own eyes, and your own past misdeeds are coming home to roost as your parents think they're enforcing tough love after your newest lie/ story.

The parents are played by Arthur Kennedy, who was no slouch of an actor (you likely saw him in Lawrence of Arabia and other films), and Barbara Hale, who would go on to household-name fame as Della Street on Perry Mason.   Our killers are the dead-eyed "that guy" actor Paul Stewart (good in so many things, here's his IMDB) and Signal Watch fave, Ruth Roman.  And if Ruth Roman killed someone, I'm sure it's not that wrong.  

It's a tight, short movie, moving through some predictable beats - including what's an effective final chase sequence through darkened, abandoned tenements.

It's kind of amazing how many movies used to be based on the idea of living on top of each other in apartment situations, or had major plotpoints that require people live in multi-family set-ups, and it's just kind of gone away. But certainly the cramped quarters of New York City and what your neighbors could be up to was part of more than one decent movie over the years.

I think it's gutsy they did this with a kid, and I wonder what it would look like in a modern context.  This is 1949, so this movie relies on the standard "mom and dad are busy, go play in abandoned buildings" living that hasn't seen the light of day in this century.  But even back in the 1940's, I'm not sure any studio but RKO is putting this movie out. 

This one has aired a few times, and I've avoided it as I often roll my eyes at things kids do in movies that are otherwise grounded, but this one feels buyable.  Our lead kid isn't a super detective or genius - he's mostly relying on adrenaline and the fact he knows the buildings.  

I see why this one gets brought up, which it does, because it's well-directed, edited and shot, and the story is lean and clean.  It's maybe not my favorite, but it gets the job done.

*and cautionary tale

Musical Watch: Ziegfeld Girl (1941)

Watched:  04/01/2025

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  First

Directors:  Robert Z. Leonard, Busby Berkeley

Increasingly lost to time is the impact Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. had on American culture of the 20th century.  A showman, theatrical empresario, producer, promoter and more, Ziegfeld is most famous for his Ziegfeld Follies, a series of extravagant Broadway shows that ran from around 1907 to his death in the 1930's.  Much of what we thought of as a stage full of beautiful young women that flooded musicals in the 1930's and 1940's and gave Busby Berkeley (credited here) a career was Hollywood tinkering with the shows Ziegfeld had staged, based on French revues.   He managed to employ folks like Irving Berlin, WC Fields, Will Rogers and many, many more.

Had Ziegfeld not passed when he did, it's likely he would have expanded into Hollywood in a more serious manner (he was already there and died in Hollywood in 1932), bringing his sensibilities to the big screen.

He was credited with creating "The Glorification of the American Girl", both featuring and populating shows with large choruses of female performers.  But he featured acts of all kinds, and shows to this day are based within the Ziegfeld Follies (see the currently running Funny Girl).  He was also not afraid to push into the risque, and folks knew what they were getting.  You can find all sorts of interesting photos online looking for Ziegfeld girls.

In what is a star-studded flick - the movie follows three girls/ women who enter into the Follies.  Like the Schwab's Pharmacy story, Ziegfeld - never seen in this movie!  And treated a bit like that Wizard Judy Garland had previously tangled with - would pluck girls out of their mundane lives by finding them behind perfume counters, working in elevators, etc...   A bit of instant wish-fulfillment if you caught the right guy's eye (which is kind of a nightmare, but in an era in which women's career options were limited, and many Ziegfeld girls married well, it's not nothing).

Val Kilmer Merges With The Infinite

Actor, writer and  Val Kilmer has passed at the age of 65.  

Kilmer had been ill for some time, suffering from throat cancer.

I first saw him in Real Genius on home video, saw his great turn in Top Gun: Maverick, and most recently saw him when I rewatched Heat.    

I always thought he was great.  Sure, you heard he was a method actor/ was difficult, but whatever.  When I saw him in a movie, he was always stellar - and for some reason I always think of how great he was in The Ghost and the Darkness.  But that was one of maybe two dozen things I saw him in.  Actually, a scan of IMDB tells me that it's likely far more films and roles than that.  Whether it was playing Jim Morrison, Batman, or Doc Holliday, or whatever... he was always a strength to whatever movie he was in. 

He'll be missed.

Lynch Watch: Inland Empire (2006)

Watched:  03/31/2025 

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  First

Director:  David Lynch

Something like 6 weeks ago, I agreed to see Inland Empire (2006) with SimonUK.  

Here's what I knew:

• It stars Laura Dern (a huge plus)
• It was a micro-budget film 
• Rabbits?
• Shot on video

Here's what I found out:

• It's 3 hours
• It's maybe a sequel to Mulholland Drive
• Rabbits!
• A greater number of name talent than I was expecting

I will be straight up with y'all and say:  I think I got between 25 and 33 percent of that movie.

I'm not embarrassed.  I think I'm pretty okay at watching movies.  Unpuzzling David Lynch is both fun and hopeless, because he was never going to tell you if you got it, really.  And looking at the critical reception on Wikipedia is just funny.  Everyone has a different opinion of what they just watched - not whether they liked it, but what happened.  

I am aware Inland Empire is a real place outside of Los Angeles, and aside from that, I don't know anything about it.*  Don't know if this has anything to do with the movie other than maybe some stuff was shot there.  And I assume there's something there about interior worlds/ lives.  But WHO KNOWS?  Not me.

It seems to be a spiritual sequel to Mulholland Drive, a film of doubles and other selves, and nightmare visions only Hollywood and dreams spawned by Tinsel Town can create.   In 2006 showing someone dying at the intersection of Hollywood and Vine and all the folks assembled at the corner do is watch is not not saying something specific (spoilers).

The overall plot has to do with a dream within a dream within a dream stack of realities in which an actress who has had issues with her career and husband gets a plumb role, but the story itself is cursed, and we cut between the reality of the actress, the film, events in the past, a Lodge-like zone with Rabbit spirits...

But, yeah, all I knew was Laura Dern was in this, but she's also a producer.  And you can also look for Jeremy Irons, Ian Ambercrombie, Justin Theroux, Harry Dean Stanton, Grace Zabriskie, Diane Ladd, Julia Ormond, Terry Crews, Mary Steenburgen? and a huge number of Polish actors I do not know.  Why Poland?  Man, I do not know.

There's a Polish curse!  That happens.

But Laura Harring shows up in literally the last minute of the film, and that's my tell that maybe this is a shared story with Mulholland Drive or a more direct sequel continuing to work out Lynch's feelings on Hollywood.

But, yeah, all of this was a lot.  I'm not sure I got it, but I also wasn't having a bad time.  I've been watching Lynch on and off since I was 15, so I'm kind of dialed in for his deal.  But I also know had I not seen this in the theater, it would have paid big dividends to watch this over again *immediately*.  Which at a full 6 hours would be a lot.

Yes, I did watch this in a theater, just a day after my bad theater experience.  And, y'all...  yes, I paid a lot because Alamo**.  But I also sat in a 3 hour movie with a 4/5ths full auditorium, audio that is often non-existent, and you could hear a pin drop through the whole movie.  And this was with people eating dinner at a 6:00 show.

And the bathroom was clean.  

It's the little things, pals.  That said, I think they're now asking for 40% over the price of food and drink.

*how shocked was I to see there is a real City of Industry in LA, and a Klickitat Street in Portland.

**I am still unclear why there's an 18% service charge and a tip option.  My guess is that the servers are getting @#$%ed.

I Just Walked Out of a Movie (because going to the theater sucks)

I'd love to also sit by myself in a theater with functioning chairs

Dear Nicole Kidman,

I love movies.  I do.  But... in the past couple of years, I've really grown to hate going to the movies. 

Here in 2025, there are no theaters that are all upside.  The Alamo is... fine.  A shadow of its heyday from a decade ago, and is currently a nightmare for labor.  How much I want to overpay for mediocre food is also part of the equation.  I've been relatively enthusiastic about the new chain, Cinepolis, but last time I saw a movie there, I realized we'd dropped > $100, and I just got mad.  I used to be able to do a full trip to the movies for $10.  Yes, inflation, but...

Nicole, I just tried to go see a movie at the theater run by your employer, AMC, by attending a screening at the Barton Creek 14.  I wound up walking out five minutes into the movie.

Things seemed afoul from when the moment we stepped in the lobby.  

Neo-Noir Watch: Collateral (2004)

Watched:  03/30/2025

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Michael Mann

There's half of an amazing character driven neo-noir in this film, and then half of an okay thriller.

I think it's the schizm of the two that makes for a frustrating viewing experience where one would be a delight and the other a pleasant enough film, but when the film shifts gears back and forth - and I usually don't mind tonal changes - it just feels like there's missed opportunity on that character study and the better film.  Collateral (2004) does get to sail on Michael Mann's slick directing and visuals (look, you can hire whatever DP, but it's Mann), and stellar performances from Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise and a kick-ass set-up that feels rooted in some classic noir.

The movie also co-stars a wide array of names.  Jason Statham appears for about twenty seconds.  Debi Mazar as well (in our book, there's never enough Mazar).  Jada Pinkett-Smith appears.  Mark Ruffalo plays an LA cop uncovering what's going on in real time.  Javier Bardem.  Bruce McGill.  Peter Berg.  

Our set up is that Jamie Fox plays Max, a cabbie, who picks up a fare, who seems like a charming guy but is actually an assassin, Vincent (Tom Cruise) flown in from points unknown to take out a series of people.  Max just wants to squirrel away money for his dream of starting a limo company.

At the first hit, Fox is waiting in his cab for Vincent when he's suddenly involved in the proceedings.  Under threat by Vincent, he begins driving him from hit-to-hit.  And that could have been enough.  The relationship building between the two could have made for a taught thriller driven by the desires and motives of each - and the movie plays with that as they reveal more about themselves and get real about the weaknesses of the other.  

But movies have to movie, and so the back 1/3rd of the movie devolves into an action flick that really doesn't make much sense from Max's perspective and undercuts what could have been explosive character work.  There's a different last third of this movie somewhere that doesn't involve an extended chase sequence and Max becoming an action hero.

Cruise and Fox are both really great when they want to be (and both have phoned it in upon occasion).  And there are really good moments for both - I disagree with the take that Cruise is wooden here - that's just not true at all.  There's a fascinating character for both players, and once the movie isn't about the two talking it through, it loses steam even as the actual action ratchets up.

I'm not sure I entirely bought the scene with Felix (Bardem) and Max, but I like the idea well enough, and both sell it.  

But what I did like was the notion that Vincent really thinks he's helping Max, even if there's an 80% chance he's going to put a bullet in him by the end of the night.  His nihilistic viewpoint which enables him to do what he does has "freed" him, while Vincent believes he'll make his next move, but he won't.  It's some really good stuff as they bounce off each other.  And you can tell Cruise is leaning all the way into Vincent - and the possibility of opening up a little to Max, but if he does, does that mean Max is done for?  

It's good stuff.

I get why the movie gets the praise - because it's almost there for me.  But it all feels like an overly complex mousetrap at the end to get us to loop back to Vincent's anecdote, and that could have been done in two or three much cleaner steps.

Anyhoo - I actually liked it.  Or large parts of it.  And I am not one to complain about Michael Mann, but it does feel like I went from thinking "this movie is incredible" to "yeah, that was good" by the end.

Western Watch: True Grit (1969)

Watched:  03/29/2025

Format:  TCM on DVR

Viewing:  First

Director:  Henry Hathaway

I saw the Coen Bros.' remake in 2010, but I'd go ahead and recommend both.  This movie is *great*.  

True Grit (1969) is the one where, after Stagecoach happened way back in 1939, the Academy finally decided to give Wayne some flowers for carrying an industry for 30 years.  But he also earns it - this is Wayne in top form even as the era of the Western had already been transformed, and had become as much about the illusion of the Old West as anything else - and  Westerns as a major genre were winding to a close.  Wayne himself would be dead by the end of 1979.

You likely know the story - an Arkansas farmer/ rancher is killed while away from home, trading for horses in Fort Smith.  The murderer is his own employee.  His precocious and pious daughter, Mattie Ross, comes to town and recruits US Marshall Rooster Cogburn to come hunt down the man responsible.  Cogburn has a notoriously high kill count, a drinking problem and nothing going for him other than his ability to hunt down crooks.

A Texas Ranger (Glen Campbell!) is also looking for the guy they're hunting and lures Rooster away with a greater bounty.  Until the indefatigable Mattie Ross refuses to be left behind.

This movie has plot, certainly, but is really a character piece about two wildly different people with a common goal, and their growing sense of respect for one another.  The dialogue of the novel is deeply stylized, and this movie makes it largely palatable, even when it sounds a bit odd.  It's one of those movies where both leads are individually difficult, stubborn humans - Mattie as a young woman of unhinged principle with a naive-to-a-fault worldview, but still smart enough to be wily, and Cogburn an old survivor who has gone largely unloved and misunderstood - and makes you kind of love them both.

Mattie's refusal to shed tears and desire, rather, to see justice done - justice that serves her own rage - is fantastic.  Just as Cogburn's shift in his attitude to Mattie kind of perfect (I am unshocked John Wayne saw how he could mingle this idea with Red River and make The Cowboys in 1972).

I don't know how many movies Kim Darby is in, but it's surprising she wasn't a bigger deal in Hollywood after this.  She's really terrific.

Anyway, I dug it.  Sorry I took so long to see it.