When I was 17 years old, and a curious kid, and back when movies had all sorts of content in them - I saw all sorts of stuff on the big screen. In general, I think it was actually a good thing. I learned about the adult world, how sex looked under professional lighting, and that my ex-girlfriend was right about that nice lady in the Crying Game the second she showed up in the film.
And since the video for Lucky Star, I'd also thought that nice lady rolling around on the floor seemed like a pretty good idea. By early 1993, the videos for Vogue and Express Yourself had done nothing to dissuade me of this opinion, let alone when my pal, Phil, taped the HBO concert special of Blonde Ambition for me.
In 1992, Rob, Scott and I had gone to see a sold-out showing of Basic Instinct on opening night (I thought it was "meh" - and I have 10,000 words on what this did to the notion of noir for a decade), and at the time we did not anticipate that Hollywood would see gold in them thar hills and spend the early 90's trying to recapture the magic in a series of erotic thrillers.
Simultaneously, Madonna had found she quite enjoyed freaking out America's moms via the Like A Prayer controversy (which seems both inappropriate and stupid rewatching the video now), and decided she would now say the word "sex" a lot, very much upsetting Tipper Gore. She liked it so much, she made a picture book about how much she liked the word, and in a field trip to the Houston Public Library downtown, we got one of the people who was already 18 to get it for us to all look at at the reference desk. And, man, were the librarians cheesed.
WARNING: Jamie tells me I should say up front - there will be bewbs. And butts. And sexy times. So, watch at your own risk, I guess.
I saw this in the theater opening weekend in 1993. It came out on the heels of the blockbuster Basic Instinct and around the time Madonna decided she was going to shock America's parents by saying the word "sex" a lot. So much, in fact, she put the word on the cover of her goofy book.*
Anyway, the movie stars one person I was thrilled to see naked (Madonna) and one person I was less excited about seeing in the altogether (Willem Defoe). And a pre-stardom Julianne Moore, Joe Mantegna (not naked), Anne Archer (always a good thing, but not naked), and Jurgen Prochnow (who seems like he'd be game for being naked, but I don't remember).
If memory serves, it's a warmed over Basic Instinct, only Madonna seems like she's trying so hard it kind of kills the mood.
*which you could not check out of the Houston Public Library, but could request to see. And BOY were those librarians pissed when we found an 18-year-old in our group who DID ask to see it. And, man, was that book boring AF.
So, this was a truncated film that cut together the story from the famed Flash Gordon serial from 1936 into a single film. For whatever reason, it was called Rocketship on Amazon Prime.
So, yeah. After 2 serials, 6 seasons of Adventures of Superman, 4 Christopher Reeve films, 1 Helen Slater film, 4 seasons of Superboy, 4 seasons of Lois & Clark, 10 years of Smallville, 1 Superman Returns, a handful of Henry Cavill movies (3?), and 6 seasons of Supergirl, it's time for one more go at live-action Superman.
Tuesday February 23rd saw the debut of Superman and Lois, a show about Superman/ Clark Kent and Lois Lane, now well into their lives, married and with two 14 year-old teenage sons (fraternal twins).
This movie held up better than I expected. It's still the same mess of wanting to be too many things that it was when I saw it in the theater, but it's still charming and still works.
Something about the movie feels like a studio editor, who didn't care, came at it super hard, or there were just too many competing things occurring in the script to make it really gel.* But the two stars, John Cusack and Minnie Driver, are charming and, frankly, non-standard enough in their approaches that they do a lot of heavy lifting just by being the leads.
Well, Texas being Texas, it's now a high of 70-something degrees. Skies are blue, and this is the weather people from out of state get duped into thinking we have all the time when they visit during the spring-times.
Today is the first day that hasn't felt like a total disaster. Yesterday I was still just sort of wandering around the house trying to figure out what to do and checking to make sure I wasn't spotting leaks or holes in the house that weren't there before. And, the inside of the house was and remains a bit of a mess. We've had a hard time keeping tidy during COVID to begin with, but add in our inability to just cook and clean with running, clean water, and it's all a bit of a mess.
Jamie's dialysis situation is pretty solid. She had treatment on Friday, and then again on Sunday. And, today, Monday, she's back on her regular schedule at her regular clinic. So, despite an ugly week of uncertainty, she's doing well, if a bit knackered. She did some chores for about two hours yesterday and then tapped out, for which I could not blame her.
I can't thank the nurses, technicians, social workers and others from Jamie's clinic enough. While it was clear this was an improvised effort, she had multiple people calling her, giving her information and driving in awful conditions (and with minimal experience) to make sure Jamie and tons of othersothers could get the care they needed. That's not nothing.
Austin Water has worked around the clock to restore water - and then drinking water - to the city. Austin Energy did what it could, kept people apprised and got power back when possible. Police, ambulances and firefighters stayed on duty. And I have to assume university staff stuck around to feed the kids on campus. I know there were also people on the UT campus keeping data centers going, keeping the heat on best they could - and power (UT has its own power plant. No fooling. It's at about 24th street).
In my own neighborhood, people offered food, water, and.. maybe most importantly information and tips. They helped each other out in countless ways that will be forgotten, but I was able to keep an eye on my own home and understand where we were at as the storm carried on as those in the know shared information about what to expect, what to do and not to do, how to deal with water heaters, how to care for pipes, etc...
This isn't the world's best musical, but it's also aggressively about not being about anything (by way of being a traditional, vaudeville-style Broadway show, and proving THAT'S what people really want).
It's been a long week, and I have a lot of things on the DVR, but Jamie didn't care what we watched, and I figured Cyd Charisse seemed like a great thing to watch.
By the time this movie was filmed, Astaire was in his mid-50's, and the story seemed all but pointedly about him. His character is a film song and dance man who has lost the spotlight. By this point, musicals were far from dead, but maybe weren't at the height of their heyday. He's playing someone maybe a few years younger than himself (convincingly) who returns to New York to work on a show with a husband and wife writing team (Oscar Levant and Nanette Fabray). They get involved with the latest big-name of Broadway, who does *serious theatre*, but who wants to try a musical.
You know he's fancy because he's doing that new-fangled Oedipus Rex show.
They rope in a top-tier choreographer and his top-teir ballerina girlfriend played by Cyd Charisse.
This isn't the only musical from around this time that feels like middle-aged people wrestling with the coming wave of American theater and dance and trying to take the piss out of it. There's a kind of goofy number in White Christmas that's really the one that doesn't work trying to poke fun at what we now call "modern dance". And, as I said up top, this one wants to remind us "please stop taking these new musicals seriously! Your heart really just wants to see people dance for 90 minutes and end with a wedding! Right? RIGHT?"
And, you know, sometimes that's true. But you kind of want to say to the movie "my friend, you haven't seen *anything* yet. Wait for the 60's.".
The movie is probably most famous for its show-within-a-show-within-a-show interlude of Astaire playing a priavte eye in a sort of Chandler/ Hammer/ whatever mystery homage and an excuse for Charisse to sex it up a whole lot. It's goofy as all get-out, and for the life of me, I can't figure out if it's full camp, a light spoof or someone trying to be quasi-earnest. But... the "Broadway Melody" sequence it is not. (By the way, this was written by the same folks who wrote Singin' In the Rain).
But, man, really, I'm not sure this sequence could have happened any earlier than 1953 or much later than '53. Noir (not yet called noir) had been in theaters for almost ten years, and all I can think is that this was how it was interpreted by song-and-dance folks trying to be cool, daddio. But... holy @#$%balls.
(also, look for when Julie Newmar walks right up to the camera!)
What *does* work, and beautifully, is the Dancing in the Dark number with Astaire and Charisse, which is the kind of number you want to see and remember with the talent they've lined up. The pair are in amazing form, and it's the one time you kind of think "well... maybe" as you look at the romance they're trying to push between a man and a woman young enough to be his daughter.
That poor Cyd Charisse, such an ungraceful and plain girl.
On the flip side, there's this weird thing where they suggest that the writer-couple is on the skids and the wife has taken up with the big-deal actor/ director/ producer guy that never... gets resolved. I guess we see a couple break up in slow motion, but just sort of from the edges? Someone help me out here, because that was weird and dark and I can't find mention of it anywhere online.
Anyway, it's not my favorite film, but I was amazed how much of it I didn't remember. A lot of people love this film, but... eh. It's fine.
Highly recommend checking out the RiffTrax version on Amazon Prime. Watched primarily because JeniferSF had watched it, and it seemed like a good idea. It was.
With the water main breakages, etc... it's been all sorts of operations that have had to do without, and dialysis centers have been hit pretty hard. She went from last Friday til today (it is Friday) when - normally - she's in on Monday, Wednesday and Friday every week.
They were unable to run her for the full duration, as there are only a few clinics open, and this morning she was sent to the wrong clinic (at 6:00 AM no less) and then traversed the city on a path I would not have recommended with freezing temps and roads, but she made it, safe and sound. Of her usual 2.5 hour run she did get 2 hours, so she should be good for a bit.
Still, these are the 1,000,000 stories of "this went a bit beyond 'we shivered a bit'" that are going to be flooding out of this event.
My colleagues from work are trying to fix things for a bunch of ungrateful college applicants, and we're having trouble on the IT side as - hey, there's no water for cooling our data center (why we aren't in the cloud - do not get me started). There's *massive* spikes for electric consumers who were on flexed rate plans (I saw a story about someone who will pay $3800 for this week's bill alone), and the water damage to property is going to be flat out insane.
Summing up the plot to Johnny Eager (1941) would be extraordinarily difficult - but the short version is: ex-con pretends to go straight, meets Lana Turner, uses her and her step-father to get his new dog track open. Poetic boozy pal plays Eager's conscience.
Honestly, it's a hell of a movie, and it's likely the goofy title that's kept it from being checked out by enough people.
I'm not a huge fan of star Robert Taylor - who is pretty rock solid here as a handsome, devil-may-care gangster with no refinement. That's not a dig, but I think I'd only seen two or so Robert Taylor films previously. But he's totally buyable as Johnny Eager.
The real hook is that Johnny can spot an angle, spot a dope, and has a mind perfectly set for operating in the criminal world - but he can't understand the straight world. People with pure motivations are a mystery that gnaws at him. More than that, his understanding of women is only as pliable tools, either as sexual playthings or as employees.
What makes the movie curious - and maybe different from other gangster films with bent leads - is the presence of Van Heflin as Jeff Jartnett, a drunk and seemingly a man of education, who hangs around Johnny as pal, enabler, and because he sees the greatness within Johnny and wants to bear witness to either the rise or fall of a great mind.
Out of prison, Johnny has put everything he's got into a dummy organization trying to open a dog track with no permits, but meanwhile it seems his control on the city is slipping. Others may be moving against him.
Annnnd in the middle of all this, he meets Lan Turner, who more or less throws herself at him. But winds up in way deeper than she barganined for, and it takes a toll on her psyche.
This is very early to be considered true noir, but not so as a gangster picture, which this most certainly is. And Turner is a femme fatale only in that she leads Johnny toward his downfall because he actually does come close to understanding sacrifice via whatever passes for love in his heart. It absolutely is a man making bad decisions (that, I mean, get him dead) over a woman, but they also redeem him, which isn't very noirish. But that he goes down throwing a hail of bullets and popped off by the cop who married his first girl? That's some symmetry there.
And that's the interesting thing about the movie, really. It's a down-in-the-streets gangster picture about a guy trying to build an empire, and sees the poetry and literary mythology in it all - right down to pointing out "he's just some guy" who dies badly in the middle of the road.
Anyhoo... I enjoyed the heck out of this movie, and not just because Turner had amazing hair through the whole thing, even when we were told she looked "awful".*
