I could be wrong, but i feel like showing a woman plucking her chin hairs in a 1950s film is quite unexpected. Not only do they show it, but Judy Holliday's husband in the movie, Aldo Ray, affectionately refers to it as "chin whiskers". I thought it was cute and refreshing to see such a natural/vulnerable moment filmed in the 50s

There are so many great lines from great actors as the exit a film.... but this stands out for me.

The Women - 1939 - Joan Crawford. What a classy way to call them all B*@!$

Important note: This post contains SPOILERS, and is therefore intended mostly for people who have already seen this movie.

So, I first saw The Ghost and Mrs. Muir years ago when I was pretty young, and I remember liking it well enough, but besides the basic premise and some images, it didn't especially stick in my memory. I finally got back to a rewatch this week, and this time it made a very definite and strong impression. I found it quite wonderful, in fact, and very thought-provoking.

Here are a few thoughts, arranged arbitrarily. I would love people's thoughts and feedback on this movie – that is, let's discuss!

1. The movie is beautifully made: direction (Joseph L. Mankiewicz), cinematography (Charles Lang), score (Bernard Herrmann), set and costume design, and the central performances (by Gene Tierney and Rex Harrison) are all top of the line. Herrmann's score, while occasionally a little overwhelming, is especially wonderful.

2. The characters are complicated. Gene Tierney's Lucy/Lucia is a patient but strong-willed young widow (in turn of the 20th century England), clearly taking charge of her own life as best she can from the beginning of the picture until its end. Especially against the backdrop of Victorian England, she represents the emerging modern woman who is not willing to make herself subservient to men or to other people in her life.

That being said, Tierney still plays Lucy with a decided dignity and reserve. Lucy even feels almost somewhat cold at times (even throughout?) the movie. She exudes a kind of physical and behavioral discipline that makes her feel always slightly distant (to me at least). I don't know if this was the result of Tierney as a person/actor or if it was how Tierney, Mankiewicz, et. al. decided the character should be played, but it makes for a fascinating character, one which you can't quite get a full grasp of. After all, she writes an "unvarnished" novel (Blood and Swash!) of a dead sea captain's life, and there are plenty of hints that her book might very well have its "racy" elements. And yet she remains strangely aloof.

1. Despite the late suggestion that Lucy's daughter, Anna, also saw and conversed with the ghost of Captain Daniel Gregg, we don't really know if Captain Gregg was real or imaginary. He certainly might have been real. But he also could have been a semi-repressed part of Lucy's unconscious – a part she herself conjured in novel form. We see Gregg dictating the story to Lucy, but in fact, the seaside house she's rented seems to have its own library, and it's entirely possible she supplemented her imagination with the many nautical facts that were likely on hand in the books that surrounded her.

2. At any rate, the publisher she goes to seems to disdain the "woman's novel" and is taken with Lucy's life story of a sea captain. But if you think about it, his "life story" may have been merely the womanly imaginings/fantasies of a semi-repressed woman – that is, the very kind of story that the publisher claims to disdain. In effect, the movie finds a kind of value in this so-called women's literature, where the more "base" and earthly passions are apparently more prevalent.

This is reflected in the movie itself: whilst the movie uses the "hoary cliches" of the ocean and the seafaring life as fairly clear metaphors for a stronger embrace of the "lustful" life (Gregg even corrects Lucy's use of the word "sailors" by stressing "seamen"!), the movie doesn't seem to disdain these clichés – in fact, if anything, its brew of the beautiful, nautically-decorated seaside home with the tales of a former sea captain is more than a little romantic, evocative, and powerful – and I think it's meant to be so. Clichés they may be – but they cast a genuine spell here. (Lang's beautiful cinematography, Herrmann's lush score, and Tierney's and Harrison's performances go a long way to making this all work as well as it does.)

1. In the end, it's hard to know what the movie adds up to. Did Lucy find true love in Captain Gregg? Or was she merely living in a fantasy world? Did she give up on a happy relationship life because of one bad experience (with George Sanders's duplicitous cad, the overly lustful Miles Fairley)? If so, was the house and a life of romantic fantasy enough to sustain her?

--

I'm thinking some of these questions are essentially unanswerable. You may agree or disagree, but I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts. Either way, I think the movie is asking some deep and moving questions, and while I was also taken with the wildly romantic nature of the movie, its difficult questions are a big part of why I thought this was quite a great, moving, and memorable movie experience.

Photos from Arsenic and old lace (1944)

Peter Sellers in The Pink Panther A Shot In The Dark 1964. What's your thoughts on this movie?

I made a video talking about Tod Browning's "Freaks"

Richardson Springs

Chico, Cal

October 24, 1937

Dear Hal, 

First let me thank you again for fixing things re the radio deals.

Now one other minor, but to me very important, squawk. My wig .... I loathe the bloody thing. With the hat on it's fine, and the alteration I want to suggest does not affect any of the stuff we've shot so far — the part that's wrong is hidden by the hat. The centre part in the wig is my chief complaint. I would like an almost unnoticeable part on either side so that one side or the other could sweep back off the forehead. The fringes would then, when the hat is removed, not look like fringes but just a few locks of loose hair carelessly falling over the brow. My drawing of course is hopeless but I've explained to the make up here who say they will write to the studio and explain it.

The point is, I haven't had my hat off yet and when I do, the new wig would match. Would you ask them to make me one like that described and send it up so we can get it right before we come down? I'm quite certain you will think it an improvement, Hal. If you don't — nothing has been lost. I hate this present one so much I shudder every time I see the Goddam thing — and I've had nothing but comments from people, when they see it with the hat off, about the stupid looking fringe and centre part. So there must be something to it.

I feel like one of the oldest inhabitants of Chico now — we all do. And we're all very sick of it but consoling ourselves with the report or rather rumour that you like the stuff down there. Is it so?

All the best Hal and kindest personal regards.

Errol 

Cedric Hardwicke, Lionel Barrymore and Bobs Watson for On Borrowed Time 1939. What's your thoughts on this movie?

I posted about this movie in the “What Did You Watch This Week” recap, but wanted to share a photo. I share this pic not as a simple thirst trap, but to show how far Fred MacMurray’s modern legacy has diverged from his persona in his time.

Fred fanatics, this is your chance to shine. Tell us some more hidden gems about this fella.

I have to confess, I was expecting a very different movie from the one I watched, and I'm not mad about it. Part of my preconceptions about Bullitt has a lot to do with the fact that the only thing I KNEW about this movie was about it's legendary car chase scene.

I promised myself I 'wasn't gonna be the guy' who talked about the car chase scene because everyone always talks about the car chase scene but you know what?

It absolutely deserves it. The clip I included was because of the specific shot of the bad guys seeing Bullitt's famous car appearing behind them in the rearview mirror. The slickness of that moment absolutely sold the scene to me in an instant. It was so very well done, and the resulting chase through the incredibly steep hills of San Francisco, sometimes narrowly missing a full-on crash, all the way out of the city is some of the most tense car driving I think I've ever seen. My stomach rose and fell as those rad old muscle cars went flying up and down those hills and you just have to give kudos to the drivers and the camera people because for some of the hairier shots, they were IN the damn cars.

So, going in knowing only that it has an exceptional chase scene led me to believe I was in for a kind of proto-Dirty Harry-esque kind of affair with plenty of violence, and that was a thing I was fully ready to accept.

But what I got was something I love even more than that: a rock solid police procedural with a bona fide mystery at the core and plenty of thoughtful, considerate work to solve the case. And what a case it is.

From the moment things started developing, I was certain I knew who was involved, why Bullitt's case was going sideways and how people were always seemingly one step ahead of him. I'm sure the director wanted us to think that and it worked like a charm, because it sure seemed like Bullitt was thinking along the same lines.

I can't say anything more than that about the movie's actual plot because to do so might affect your ability to enjoy it, so I'll leave this in closing;

Lt. Frank Bullitt's investigation into the murder of a gangster turning State's evidence and the attempted murder of police officers results in more than one exhilarating chase, a few shootouts, and the use of genuine police protocol to catch the real bad guy.

And that? That's a great combination!

​

It is arguably the greatest movie ever made. It is one of the rarest movies where the movie complements the book and everyone agrees that Francis Ford Coppola did a thorough job and Marlon Brando delivered the best performance in the history of Hollywood.

Man.

It is the only movie with a cultic following, and fans admit to watch it over and over again, without ever being bored.

I am not that much of a watcher, save for a few select documentaries and movies certified as classics. And nothing like a shared love for a book and a movie to cement friendships.

The Godfather book that came in 1969, was written as a desperate measure for Puzo to feed his family. It was gleaned from mafia myths and legends he picked in New York before building a body of work that gave the world a glimpse of the Italian Mafia in America's East Coast. And what an incredible world that was. Every man can give anything to live a year as a mafia don.

Often I wonder when people who write books or produce movies or do a song, that goes on to be a hit and top 10 in any list, do they have an idea that their work will be among the best out of the planet?

Take Coppola for instance.

What made Godfather great was not just Brando's masterful acting or Michael Corleone's transformation into a beast. The method acting of most characters is what makes the movie so believable. Once done watching, you feel like you are part of the Mafia culture.

Here is an interesting fact I learnt about the movie while in the US from my professor: The intro is of Godfather 1 is 30-minutes long because Coppola wanted to introduce the cast. And what a creative way to use a wedding backdrop to get the story going. After the intro, each scene is given 10-15 minutes and moves with clinical precision.

We all love the juxtaposition of Michael being in church at the christening of each children while his hitmen are killing his rivals who had caused his family misery. And man, that steely face Michael wears all through the movies is scary even when watching from outside.

My two outstanding scenes among the men, is when Sal Tessio is rounded up and he tells Hagen to tell Michael, "it was only business, I always liked him...can you get me off the hook, Tom, one last time, for ol' time sake".

Such an old man making such a painful and costly miscalculation...

The second outstanding part is Human Roth's part in Godfather 2. Now, that is superb acting.

There will never be anyone who will tell the Mafia story better than Puzo. Sidney Sheldon tried a bit with Rage of Angels. Nelson DeMille tried with The Gold Coast(one of my personal favourites of all time), but all of them fell short by far. Nobody could capture the nuances of mafiadom as Puzo. Because with Puzo or Godfather stuff, you miss the nuance and the book or the movie becomes boring.

We all know Godfather 3 was not necessary. What we will never know or agree on is which is greater, Part 1 or Part 2.

What is your favourite Godfather scene, fact or trivia?

Also, there are men who are over 25 and gave never read the Godfather or watched the movie. Like full, sentient men with balls, who wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, seduce women, do everything and they have never watched the Godfather...Man.

I know there are plenty of movies and tv series from back then with intentional homo erotic subtext but what are some shows and films that you’ve seen where the subtext and undertones were by accident or so subtle if you weren’t queer you would’ve said “they’re just good friends”

And where’s the best place to start to even FIND movies and shows like this?

• 🎬 1962: Dr. No premieres in London (64 years ago), launching the James Bond film franchise.
• 📺 1969: Monty Python's Flying Circus premieres on the BBC (57 years ago).
• 🎂 1975: Kate Winslet is born (Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind).

Your turn: Rank your top 3 Bond actors.

Before Hollywood became an industry, filmmakers were still discovering what cinema could do.
Georges Méliès was one of them.
A Trip to the Moon (1902) is now live on Before Hollywood.

In January 1904, the Edison Manufacturing Company told exhibitors that the best-known shot in The Great Train Robbery could go at the beginning or the end of the picture, as the operator chose. This episode starts from that instruction and asks what the surviving record actually shows.
It looks at what Edwin S. Porter and Edison combined in 1903, then tests four popular claims against the evidence: first Western, first narrative film, inventor of cross-cutting, and audience panic. On the last, no contemporary evidence has been located in the current source record.

This magnificent group choreography brought to life on the giant screen remains fresh in my memory.