Thursday, December 10, 2020

Mank plus Short Takes on suggestions for TCM cable offerings and other cinematic topics

Quiet!  Genius at Drink Work!

Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke


 With this posting Two Guys in the Dark approaches our 9th year in operation, since December 12, 2011 after encouragement from our good friend, now-retired-film-critic Barry Caine.  In that stretch of time (including this posting) we’ve imposed ourselves on the Internet 457 times (some of which were just Oscar predictions, etc., with no reviews) exploring 886 films (art) or movies (entertainment).  (Well, OK, I’ve done all the reviewing so far because Pat Craig’s [left, above photo; an old 2011 pre-blog shot] still polishing the opening sentence for his critique of Gone with the Wind, but he should be done soon, then they’ll just be 2 more before he’s ready to post.  [He always said if you need more than 3 sentences to express your thoughts you’re overdoing it; of course, that would negate everything I’ve written since kindergarten.])  In those years we’ve had 1,564,774 unique hits from various readers around the world, which we greatly appreciate.  Pat’s still out there (in Nebraska as best we know) gathering his insights on various topics, so until he’s done Ken will soldier on with his critiques on an (almost) weekly basis, bringing you commentary on whatever cinematic opportunities might present themselves during this time of pandemic-demanded-streaming choices; please read on, now and in years to come (we assume, depending on how effective those vaccines prove to be).

          

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) when they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.

                     

                              Mank (David Fincher)   rated R

               

Opening Chatter (no spoilers): Last weekend my marvelous wife, Nina, and I watched again (from a TCM recording of a recommendation I made here last week) one of the films on my SOME "ALL-TIME" BESTS FROM OTHER LISTS (easily in my To 20 of All-Time when forced to make such choices as well, hard to not include it in my All-Time Top 10 but there are many other deserving triumphs to consider), Federico Fellini’s 1963  (as it was the 8½-th film he’d done after some features and inclusions in anthologies), winner of Oscars for Best Foreign Film and Best Costume Design—received 98% positive reviews at Rotten Tomatoes along with a remarkable 91% at Metacritic (here’s a trailer, with my encouragement to watch the film whenever you can—it’s a bit surreal in places but always enjoyable).  However, what I saw to give you a feature review about is Mank, which explores aspects of my All-Time #1, Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941 [only 25 when his debut film was in production]), although it’s mostly about the early draft(s) of that film’s script from Herman Mankiewicz who channeled his knowledge/relationship with newspaper-magnate William Randolph Hearst and Hearst’s mistress, Hollywood star Marion Davies, into the story that would eventually provide a foundation for what many (including me) consider the greatest film ever made.  In this rendition—available to subscribers of Netflix streaming, plus some theaters—of the background of how that script came to be from an alcoholic dealing with a broken leg while dictating an early draft of what would ultimately become an Oscar-winning screenplay, we don’t focus much on Welles but more on Mankiewicz’s relationships with Hearst, Davies, and MGM studio head Lewis B. Mayer.  Also, in the Short Takes section I’ll offer suggestions for some choices on the Turner Classic Movies channel (but too much extra text for line-justified-layout like you see here [Related Links stuff at each posting’s end is similarly-ragged], at least to be done by this burned-out-BlogSpot-drone—oh, tedious software!) along with my standard dose of movie-industry-related-trivia.


Here’s the trailer for Mank: 

                   (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge it; activate 

                   that same button or use the “esc” keyboard key to return to normal size.)



If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $.  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid those important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters like this: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

               

What Happens: (As with my review last week about Hillbilly Elegy [Ron Howard], I’ll just use a chronological recap of the events of Mank because this film’s structure is also constantly shifting between a present time [1940 here] and flashbacks [mostly in 1934, along with a few years before and after] which give crucial insights into the present events, but it gets awfully clumsy in print to keep making those time-jumps (works fine when you're watching it), so I’ll mostly stay linear—after my brief intro just below—even as I’ll emphasize the impact of watching the film is much better when you see it as it’s actually fragmentally-constructed across the years.  So, here I go.*In 1940, we find noted Hollywood screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz** (Gary Oldman) recuperating from a broken leg in a 1939 auto accident, being moved out to the CA desert town of Victorville (east of L.A.) so he could concentrate on working with Orson Welles (Tom Burke [no relation to me]) to write the script for what became Citizen Kane (called American in earlier drafts), with Welles-collaborator John Houseman (Sam Troughton) assigned to keep tabs on “Mank,” especially to force this well-known-alcoholic to stay sober enough to push forward on a script he’d originally been told he had 90 days to finish, then was suddenly cut to 60 by Welles.  While Houseman was apparently more of a presence than is shown in this film, the dictation-transcriptions we see are done by Mank’s secretary, Rita Alexander (Lily Collins)—whose surname is used for Susan Alexander Kane in the actual script.


 While it becomes clear enough to everyone once the film is finally shown that the main character is largely patterned on newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), it’s Rita who first calls our attention to this fact/fiction overlap when she points it out to Mank who has no intention of softening the comparison.  To understand why Mank was so down on Hearst after having been a frequent guest at his San Simeon “castle” years before (where Hollywood notables such as Charlie Chaplin [Craig Robert Young] were often in attendance) we’ll have to pull together information from frequent flashbacks throughout this presentation about Mank; his boss at MGM, Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard); Hearst; the mogul’s paramour, movie actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried)—a hardly-secret-mistress who only faded into the background when Hearst’s wife, Millicent, happened to be in California from her home in New York—the affair continuing for years as Millicent refused to grant Hearst a divorce.  So, back in time we go, 1930, to see how this this trauma comes about.***


(Here’s a production shot of the film in progress, not an image from within a finished scene.)


*However, if you would like to read a brief summary of Mank as it flows on-screen hopping frequently from its 1940 present into those various 1930s flashbacks that lead to the scripting "action," go here.


**Herman Mankiewicz had an long career in many aspects of the motion picture business, mostly as a writer but also with some uncredited-roles as producer, especially for early Marx Brothers movies (Monkey Business [Norman Z. McLeod, 1931], Horse Feathers [McLeod, 1932], Duck Soup [Leo McCarey, 1933]), with probably his most-recognizable-titles today (in addition to Citizen Kane) as co-screenwriter of Dinner at Eight (George Cukor, 1933) and The Pride of the Yankees (Sam Wood, 1942), although he was also an uncredited-script-contributor to The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming, 1939).  His younger brother, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, was also a screenwriter/producer but is better known for his directing career, especially the back-to-back-Oscar-wins (Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay) for A Letter to Three Wives (1949) and All About Eve (1950—also won Best Picture), although I also greatly admire Sleuth (1972) for which Joe was also nominated as director.  Further, Herman was the grandfather of noted current TCM host, Ben Mankiewicz (Joe was his great-uncle).


***FYI (if you need it), here’s a brief synopsis of historical info on a few of the most well-known-people shown in Mank (beyond Mankiewicz and Welles) to compare to how they're seen on screen.


 In 1930 Mank’s at Paramount where he’s in conversation (joining other screenwriters) with producer David O. Selznick (Toby Leonard Moore) and director Josef Von Sternberg (Paul Fox) about a new project; afterward, Mank goes to a film shoot on location where he sees Davies who introduces him to Hearst.  The powerful businessman is taken with Mank’s humor, often invites him to lavish parties at the Castle (in 1942 my parents briefly lived in Cambria, just a few miles from San Simeon, before Dad was shipped out to fight in the Philippines; they told me you could drive out on Hwy 1 right on the coast, where you could see the Castle far up on a hill, hear music from such parties, a brief distraction from the reality of WW II raging all over the globe)In 1933 we see Mank and wife Sara (Tuppence Middleton) at one of those events, a birthday party for Mayer where there’s even more concern with local Socialist Upton Sinclair (Bill Nye) than with the grotesque rise of the Nazis in Germany (later in this decade, though, the film notes Mank arranged for 100 Jews to escape to the U.S [that's factual but not necessarily such a specific number]); Mank goes on a private stroll with Davies who tells him that even Mayer feels constraints (although he doesn’t publically voice them) because he just runs MGM, doesn’t own it (actual owner was the huge Lowe’s theater chain), yet he still throws his power around like Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in The Godfather trilogy (Francis Ford Coppola in 1972, 1974, 1990; a re-edited #3 is now available for rental on several platforms so I’ll soon see if the changes might shuffle the often-denigrated-impact of that narrative).


 By 1934 Mank and his brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) work at MGM as Sinclair (favored by Mank) runs for Governor of California, opposed by Mayer (also head of the CA GOP) and his chief studio enforcer, Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley), who produce a series of ads against Sinclair, funded by Hearst, extremely successful in victory for Sinclair’s opponent, Frank Merriam.  Mank tries to use Davies to get Hearst to stop the ads, but she’s more focused on leaving MGM for Warner Brothers so his pleas go unanswered, leaving Mank notably dissatisfied with both of them, then heartbroken when his editor friend, Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane), who put together the anti-Sinclair ads under Thalberg’s demands, is so despondent about the election he kills himself.  In 1937 Mank’s at another Hearst Castle party, drunkenly talks about a film he wants to write (which will become American), chasing Mayer and others away, leaving only Mank and Hearst who tells him a parable about an organ grinder and a monkey who mistakenly thinks he’s the one in charge of their act rather than the human, implying Mank as the deluded monkey, a tale which doesn’t help their connection very much.


 Now we’ll move on to 1940 (although much of what I’ve just described isn’t clearly known to us at that point but will be revealed in the film through those flashbacks as we move toward the film’s conclusion).  Houseman (and Rita) are concerned about the nonlinear structure of Mank’s script, the obvious allusions to Hearst and Davies (although Mank futilely tries to argue to everyone [probably including himself] that Charles Foster Caine is just an amalgamation of various industry titans while talent-starved-Susan Alexander isn’t supposed to be Marion, but even she doesn’t believe it when she sees the script [turns out Rosebud is Willy’s pet name for Marion’s lady parts]), the need to finish the draft before the imposed time runs out lest they all be fired by the RKO execs who may be rethinking how much creative freedom they gave Welles for his debut-cinematic-experiment.  As a few eyes find their way to the finished product (although, see the next section of this review about the many actual drafts there were before shooting ever began) concern about Hearst is clear with Rita, Joe, and Houseman.  Of course it gets worse when Davies’ nephew, Charles Lederer (Joseph Cross), takes a copy of the script—allowed by Mank—to Hearst who goes ballistic over it.  ⇒Marion tries to talk Mank into changes yet he refuses; Mayer, under pressure from Hearst, organizes the other studio heads into joining him in pressing RKO head George Schaefer (Glenn Edward) to sell them the film’s negative so they can destroy it but no dice as the film goes forward (after those additional rewrites that aren’t noted in Mank).  However, even though Hearst’s threats don’t keep the film from being released (although just in limited fashion) the final conflict comes from Welles, trying to buy out Mank, allowing Orson to take full credit for the writing (he does contribute significantly, as will be noted in the next section of this review, but far too much of the foundation was originated by Mank for him to not get recognition for it).  Ultimately, both share Original Screenplay credit, winning them the Oscar in 1942 (the only one for … Kane despite several other nominations), a ceremony neither of them attended, the only Oscar triumph for both of them despite their continued attempts to make headway in the industry along with the ironic-long-after-the-fact-embrace of Citizen Kane as a groundbreaker.  Mank ends with a fake newsreel in which he accepts his award, criticizes Welles.⇐


So What? Given my admiration for Citizen Kane (Full disclosure: First time I saw it during my college years I was astounded but upon a second viewing it felt like pompous showmanship; however, after a third time, then dozens more through the ensuing decades I’ve nothing but awe for this grand triumph of the cinematic arts, no matter who contributed what to the final script and its screen-manifestation)—see that PDF link above on my All-Time Top 10 (which takes account of what something accomplishes thematically/technically in its time of initial release, explaining [possibly weakly without considerably more argument] how a film as ancient [moralistic] as Intolerance continues on my list)—so I was eager to see Mank, aided by the ongoing-credentials of Fincher and Oldman.  While you may still have an option to find it in a theater, I had to wait until December 4, 2020 to stream it on Netflix (for about $14 a month [cancel at any time; I also toss in an extra $10 for DVD rentals]), enjoyed it thoroughly, but, based on my film-loving-wife, Nina’s, response I am a bit cautious in how much I hype it because if you’re not as saturated in the 1930s-early ‘40s historical material so essential here as I am what you watch may not seem all that compelling (a chief reason why I didn’t consider 4½ stars).  However, for general appreciation of Mank you don’t have to do a crash course in mid-20th-century cinema and society because you can get a good sense of what’s underlying such a fine film with this short video (7:49) which is spoiler-free, a bit limited in its overall coverage but still with useful historical information; of course, if you want to be really prepared you should also be familiar with … Kane, which you can see via some streaming options at JustWatch.*


*When I looked it up I found free streaming at HBO Max (need a subscription or HBO on cable TV), Direct TV (if an AT&T satellite subscriber), somewhat free at Watch TCM site for Citizen Kane (you have to verify a cable TV provider; further, it may only be there through December 10, 2020 [may come back again?]).  Of, if none of those options work, there are several rental choices, most at $3.99 for HD; if you're interested in Mank, though, I recommend watching … Kane first because it will make the former choice much richer with its intended allusions, references, stylistic connections.


 So, if you’ve done your above due-diligence you might also be willing to dig a little deeper with this video (12:46) which explores some of the learned controversy about Welles and Mankiewicz's conflicting claims concerning primary authorship of this seminal cinematic work, giving you a useful overview of how famed film critic Paul Kael* in her 1971 essays in The New Yorker, “Raising Kane” (a lengthy 2-parter found at this site [February 20,1971, although the website dates it as Feb. 13?] and this one [Feb. 27, listed as Feb. 20 here?])** claimed, in the context of extensive detail about the 1930s film business, how Welles deserved virtually no credit for the script (aligning herself with defenders of Mank, including Houseman, despite not doing the additional research she should have done, including confronting Welles with her charges), challenged later by others including Peter Bogdanovich and Robert L. Carringer who give substantial evidence supporting Welles’ notable contributions without denigrating the valuable work provided in those several drafts from Mankiewicz.


 In that the more notable previous cinematic explorations of these fierce controversies over first the content, then the release of … Kane has focused on the actions of Hearst (and his collaboratring-studio-heads) vs. Welles (and his nervous-but-staunch supporters at RKO) in such works as the PBS documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (Michael Epstein and Thomas Lennon, 1996) and its HBO dramatization in RKO 281 (Benjamin Ross, 1999)—both available for purchase at Amazon but I’m not aware of any streaming options—Mank offers a most-useful-addition to all the extensive explorations of aspects of Citizen Kane, even if it just mostly follows Kael’s thesis about Mank’s working process/inspirations from his personal encounters with Hearst and Davies without getting into Kael’s long-after-the-fact-dispute about authorship and those subsequent rebuttals.  (Maybe that will be the subject of another film someday, although I think the content might be a bit too wonky-academically-oriented to appeal to a general audience unless maybe Kael’s played by Madonna, Bogdanovich by Warren Beatty, and Welles by James Corden [although if this movie’s ever made they should get Tom Burke to dub in Corden’s voice because he sounds eerily like Welles]; I don’t know much about Carringer [Emeritus Professor of English and Cinema Studies at the U. of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana] or whether he'll earn a part in such a cinematic-Kael-Bogdanovich cage-match, but as a mere academic [I speak from extensive experience] I doubt much of anyone else knows him either [outside of his writings, colleagues, campus classes] so they could probably cast Jason Mamoa [Aquaman] without causing much of a stir [Carringer might like it also; I sure would].)







*See my TCM Suggestions far below for an upcoming documentary about Kael (Friday 12/11/2020).


**Kael’s incorporated her essay into The Citizen Kane Book (1971)—with parts 1-17 as the original magazine publication, parts 18-30 as the second installment—along with the final shooting script (what the filmmaking team brings to the production process, although changes often occur on set), attributed to Mankiewicz and Welles, and the script's cutting-continuity-version of the script compiled after the fact of final editing; Carringer’s essay, “The Scripts of Citizen Kane,” (Critical Inquiry Vol. 5, No. 2 [Winter, 1978] pp. 369-400) is a meticulous examination of all drafts of the …Kane screenplay, the earlier ones using even more precise items about Hearst, with his findings clearly contradicting Kael.  You might be able to access his article at this site, although maybe not without an academic-institution-affiliation.  If not, you can probably get these details and much more in the revised edition of his book, The Making of Citizen Kane (1996)—that is, I'll assume such as I (gasp!) haven't read it.


 Now that you’ve waded through all of those above possibilities—assuming you didn’t drown first, or maybe you just ignored all of it—what do you care about the contents of Mank?  If, like me, you’re saturated with … Kane lore you’ll probably be easily impressed with Fincher’s determination (fighting as Welles did to get his vision on screen despite marketing concerns about difficulty in being able to relate to audiences conditioned to full-color, linear-progressing, careable-character movies) to make this in black & white (like … Kane, even to the opening credits looking like something from a far-away-day), mix up the chronology (also like … Kane, where the present story of the notorious man’s death is examined by a newsreel reporter who interviews significant figures in Kane’s life—although that does lead to subjective flashback accounts, somewhat in contradiction of each other, whereas Mank is told more objectively [but certainly with clear sympathy toward its title character; conversely, it takes quite a stretch of emotional largesse to find sympathy with Kane, just as I’m sure Mankiewicz had limited intentions of doing so]), leave us with a complicated protagonist who clearly had talent to spare but made life difficult for himself and those who tried to be close to him especially due to the disruptions caused by his constant drinking (Kane “never gets drunk,” according to angry Jed Leland [Joseph Cotton] but has plenty of other behavioral-reasons to put almost everyone at odds with him).


 Yet, even though Mank is clearly an homage of sorts to Citizen Kane it doesn’t try to do anything more than follow Kael’s original argument in favor of how crucial were Mank’s ideas for Welles’ famous film, stopping completely short of even acknowledging the many revisions there were to this script by both Mankiewicz and Welles before any shooting began (Carringer’s article clarifies further Welles’ ongoing contributions/improvements to the written blueprint, again a topic for another film someday), so, if nothing else, people who’ve at least heard of Citizen Kane but haven’t seen it, know little actual fact about it, can watch Mank (hopefully at least preceded or followed by a screening of … Kane) to learn of another genius in addition to Welles who deserves to also be remembered for essential contributions to this landmark film (as do so many others such as cinematographer Gregg Toland [who also shared dual screen credit with Welles], editor Robert Wise, composer Bernard Herrmann).  If, after all this exploration and praise, you look again at my All-Time top films and lament I’m lost in time, disconnected from 21st century-cinematic-sensibilities, all I can do in my own defense is refer you to this collection of 10 clips from Citizen Kane (choose the following ones after the first from the cluster to the right of the YouTube screen or they should just play in order [maybe interrupted by ads]; about 30.5 min. in total, a great condensation of crucial elements of the film with warnings the last 2 clips are spoilers if you haven’t seen … Kane yet, so at least watch this rough ¼ of the whole film if you don’t know the story already before seeing Mank) in hopes you’ll see why it (and other “ancient” choices of mine) continue to resonate in my ongoing-cinema-evaluations.


Bottom Line Final Comments: As noted, a chief similarity in how I’ve approached Mank and my previous review of Hillbilly Elegy is streamlining the chronological details into linear fashion rather than constant flashback accounts.  A key difference between those two docudramas, though, is now I’m more in league with the CCAL, most of whom are considerably more supportive of Mank as opposed to the earlier one.  Whereas they were in brutal OCCU mode toward … Elegy (Rotten Tomatoes, 26% positive reviews; Metacritic, 39% average score) they’re much more embracing of Mank, as RT has 87% positives, MC a (very high for them) 79% score, but, then again, you’d expect reviewers surveyed by these sites to be heavily-filmicly-invested so the topic—as with me—was likely easily embraced as was Fincher’s approach which gives clear allusions to aspects of … Kane* while also delving into Mankiewicz’s history not just with Hearst but also Mayer and the whole context of the 1930s Hollywood empire (when movies—and radio—were among the few useful diversions for scores of Americans laid low by the Great Depression; a cheap night at the movies, especially in cities where many theaters offered a diversity of content from the major and minor studios, went a long way in those dark days of giving people something to take their minds off of miserable realities they’d have to face the next morning (Woody Allen [if you haven’t boycotted his work] does a marvelous exploration of this complex dichotomy in The Purple Rose of Cairo [1985]).  


 Now, back to Hillbilly Elegy again because of its emphasis on the importance of family (even when they’re driving each other crazy), Mank also has a strong family connection in that Fincher’s father, Jack, a bit of a screenwriter himself (more so than his son who’s written only a couple of shorts while accruing a huge 93 directing credits in films and videos thus far), along with being a journalisteven was San Francisco Bureau Chief for Life magazinewrote the script for Mank in the 1990s, highly influenced by Kael’s essay, with intentions for David to direct it then but it remained in limbo until recently; in my opinion, it’s what in the old days would have been called a “crackerjack” script, so when those Oscar nominations roll around next spring there might be a posthumous one for old Jack (died 2003) along with strong possibilities for Oldman as Best Actor, Seyfried as Supporting Actress, maybe even Eric Messerschmidt for Best Cinematography (not sure how the soundtrack by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross will fare, as I get so caught up in the visuals—including editing—I don’t pay as much attention to the aural structure of most films as I should).  Who knows, given the industry-orientation of the Academy Mank might even get a Best Picture nom, a Best Director nod for Fincher.


*For the record, Citizen Kane has a perfect record with both these groups: 100% positive reviews at RT (based on 94), 100% average score at MC (based on 19 reviews), a rare result for each of them.



 But, speaking of aural enhancements, let’s bring all of this hullaballoo to a close with my usual tactic of a Musical Metaphor to provide one last viewpoint, even if it may take a bit of generous imagination to see the connections.  In this case, after pondering possibilities for a few days, then considering Nina’s suggestion of whether Paul Simon’s useful-songbook might provide anything I finally turned to another famous musician with NYC connections, Bob Dylan, although this tune comes from the time after recuperation from his motorcycle accident when he had relocated to the NY state countryside, then stripped down his instrumentation to be more like his early acoustic days for his 1967 John Wesley Harding album, from which I choose “Dear Landlord” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C0wqltUKgY*; I know honchos like Mayer and Hearst weren’t actual landlords for Mankiewicz (although the latter ran a studio Mank worked at as if he did own the place), but, especially after that “monkey” analogy Hearst laid on Mank it’s easy enough to see why he’d ask powerful men such as them (Welles, too, as this narrative progresses—although not nearly so wealthy) to “Please don’t put a price on my soul My burden is heavy My dreams are beyond control.”  He even acknowledges men such as these have […] suffered much [themselves] But in this you are not so unique All of us, at times, we might work too hard To have it too fast and too much And anyone can fill his life up With things he can see but he just cannot touch” (Hearst, Kane).  But while Mank was willing to agree […] if you don’t underestimate me I won’t underestimate you,” that didn’t prove to be a successful bargain for him, so even if Pauline Kael wasn’t as convincing as she intended to be in reassessing the crucial contributions Mankiewicz made to Citizen Kane she at least brought him back into the discussion, just as this film provides solid attempts in at least pondering things from his perspective.


*Neither the video nor the audio quality of this live 2003 performance is all that great, but I can’t find one any better and at least this one has the lyrics below the video screen so you can translate/sing along if you like.  Besides, if Dylan really has given up music, as some things I’ve read recently say he has (Facebook rumors, maybe, because I can’t find anything about it again, just lots of links about him selling his music catalogue), in order to concentrate on his new CBD business (however, I can’t find anything about that anymore either) I’d like to perpetuate his previous individualistic aural presence for as long as I can, even when his vocalizations are awfully unintelligible to my aging ears.

              

SHORT TAKES

           

Suggestions for TCM cablecasts

                 

At least until the pandemic subsides Two Guys also want to encourage you to consider movies you might be interested in that don’t require subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon Prime, similar Internet platforms (we may well be stuck inside for longer than those 30-day-free-initial-offers), or premium-tier-cable-TV-fees.  While there are a good number of video networks offering movies of various sorts (mostly broken up by commercials), one dependable source of fine cinematic programming is Turner Classic Movies (available in lots of basic-cable-packages) so I’ll be offering suggestions of possible choices for you running from Thursday afternoon of the current week (I usually get this blog posted by early Thursday mornings) on through Thursday morning of the following week.  All times are U.S. Pacific Daylight so if you see something of interest please verify actual show time in your area for the day listed.  These recommendations are my particular favorites (no matter when they’re on, although some of those early-day-ones might need to be recorded, watched later), but there’s considerably more to pick from you might like even better; feel free to explore their entire schedule here. You can also click the down arrow at the right of each listing for additional, useful info.


I’ll bet if you checked that entire schedule link just above you’d find other options of interest, but these are the only ones grabbing my attention at present.  Please dig in further for other possibilities.


Thursday December 10, 2020


3:15 PM His Girl Friday (Howard Hawks, 1940) Adapted from Ben Hecht-Charles MacArthur play, The Front Page, this turns a sensationalistic-journalism-story into something with those aspects but also becomes a screwball comedy where now-divorced newspaper editor Walter Burns (Gary Grant) conspires to get ex-wife Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) back (and on the payroll to cover a big story) despite her upcoming marriage to mild-mannered Ralph Bellamy. Famous rapid-fire dialogue.


Friday December 11, 2020


8:30 PM What She Said: The Art of Pauline Kael (Rob Garver, 2018) Despite good intentions on my part when it was still playing in theaters I never saw this 2019 documentary about one of the great film critics of all time (although, as noted above, she seems to have been off-base somewhat regarding aspects of how the Citizen Kane script came to be) but I’ll still assume this biography is well worth your time in exploring information about her and interviews with people who knew her.


Monday December 14, 2020


7:15 AM Cool Hand Luke (Stuart Rosenberg, 1967) Big hit at the time, especially with the anti-Establishment crowd, still revered today (100% positive at Rotten Tomatoes) with Paul Newman as a rebellious prisoner, George Kennedy (Best Supporting Actor Oscar) as his buddy, Struthers Martin as the cruel warden who spouts the famous line “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”  Lots of cruel violence in this film, a harsh condemnation of the worst aspects of the prison system.


Wednesday December 16, 2020


3:00 AM Winter Light (Ingmar Bergman, 1962) Part of a soul-searing trilogy (Through a Glass Darkly, 1961; The Silence, 1963) dealing in some manner with the awful silence of God, questions about faith having no meaning in this story about a pastor (Gunnar Björnstrand), a troubled couple (Gunnel Lindblom, Max von Sydow) of his parishioners, and a teacher (Ingrid Thulin) who tries unsuccessfully to comfort the pastor; gloomy as hell but well worth it for the quality in this production.


8:45 AM The Gold Rush (Charles Chaplin, 1925) A celebrated success of a great cinema master, even as a silent movie (music and intertitles), as The Tramp's in the Klondike seeking his fortune, finding many challenges instead, comedy mixed with pathos. Contains the boot-for-dinner scene, 

the Oceana Roll dance, plus the teetering cabin scene (also stars Georgia Hale, Mack Swain).


5:00 PM Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958) Once a decade, Sight & Sound magazine polls film critics on All-Time #1; in 2012 Vertigo ended Citizen Kane’s (Orson Welles, 1941) 50-year run on top (Kane’s still #1 for me), certainly one of Hitchcock’s best, but a hard choice also. James Stewart’s an ex-cop with a fear of heights, shadowing—then romancing—a friend’s possibly-faithless wife (Kim Novak), who seemingly leaps to her death … or does she? Stewart’s character’s a real departure.


Thursday December 17, 2020 


3:45 AM North by Northwest (Alfred Hitchcock, 1959) One of Hitchcock’s top achievements (that’s saying a lot) about a case of mistaken-identity gone terribly wrong as ad executive Roger Thornhill (Gary Grant) is thought to be a U.S. spy, hunted by thugs working for a foreign agent (James Mason).  A marvelous collage of great scenes including the crop-duster-in-the-cornfield; also stars Eve Marie Saint, Leo G. Carroll, Martin Landau providing a great combination of tension and laughs.


If you’d like your own PDF of the rating/summary of this week's review, suggestions for TCM cablecasts, links to Two Guys info click this link to access then save, print, or whatever you need.


Other Cinema-Related Stuff: Some extras of possible interest: (1) WB will release all 2021 product in both theaters and HBO Max; (2) Theater stocks drop after WB decision; (3) 5 questions for movie business after WB move; (4) AMC Theaters opposes WB plan; (5) Christopher Nolan also against WB-HBO Max plan.  As usual I’ll close this section with Joni Mitchell’s "Big Yellow Taxi" (1970 Ladies of the Canyon album)—becauseYou don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone”—and my reminder: search streaming/rental/purchase options at JustWatch.

             

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:

             

We encourage you to visit the summary of Two Guys reviews for our past posts.*  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage If you’d like to Like us on Facebook please visit our Facebook page. We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it!


*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problems’ been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.


Here’s more information about Mank:


https://www.netflix.com/title/81117189 (Netflix official site; skimpy info)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47k2aUzob4Y (11:31Mank vs real life, spoilers, says you need to know … Kane to fully appreciate Mank [ads interrupt at about 3:40, 7:00, 9:50])


https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mank


https://www.metacritic.com/movie/mank


Please note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow connect 

with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a bit of a mystery to us old farts).


If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here please use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work(But if you truly have too much time on your hands you might want to explore some even-longer-and-more-obtuse-than-my-film-reviews-academic-articles about various cinematic topics at my website, https://kenburke.academia.edu, which could really give you something to talk to me about.)


If we did talk, though, you’d easily see how my early-70s-age informs my references, Musical Metaphors, etc. in these reviews because I’m clearly a guy of the later 20th century, not so much the contemporary world.  I’ve come to accept my ongoing situation, though, realizing we all (if fate allows) keep getting older, we just have to embrace it, as Joni Mitchell did so well in "The Circle Game," offering sage advice even when she was quite young herself.


By the way, if you’re ever at The Hotel California knock on my door—but you know what the check-out policy is so be prepared to stay for awhile (quite an eternal while, in fact).  Ken


P.S.  Just to show that I haven’t fully flushed Texas out of my system here’s an alternative destination for you, Home in a Texas Bar, with Gary P. Nunn and Jerry Jeff Walker.  But wherever the rest of my body may be my heart’s always with my longtime-companion, lover, and wife, Nina Kindblad, so here’s our favorite shared song—Neil Young’s "Harvest Moon"

—from the performance we saw at the Desert Trip concerts in Indio, CA on October 15, 2016 (as a full moon was rising over the stadium) because “I’m still in love with you,” my dearest, a never-changing-reality even as the moon waxes and wanes over the months/years to come.

         

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

          

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 5,856 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys' site):


No comments:

Post a Comment