cinema history class: the 7th voyage of sinbad (1958)

 The session: "Holiday-Premiered Fantasy Films—Get Your Ray Harryhausen On"

All four movies in this session are fantasy films that were released during the holiday season. In addition, the first three featured the stop-motion special effects of Ray Harryhausen.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958)
Directed by Nathan Juran

My Impressions Going In:

I remember seeing the trailer on TV when I was a kid, during one of its rereleases in the 1970s. I really wanted to see it, and my mom agreed to take me. Sadly, I don't think I ever saw it.

Plot:

En-route to Bagdad for their wedding, Sinbad and Princess Parisa encounter a series of deadly monsters.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Someone -- I don't remember who -- put it best when he said that Sinbad was the Indiana Jones of his day. The description isn't exactly right; unlike the Indiana Jones movies, this doesn't really involve some huge quest for a historical artifact. Sinbad just wants to get to Bagdad and get married. And there isn't any one arch villain. Instead there are several claymation monsters.

It's hard for me to assess how appropriate Sinbad7 was for children -- especially children of the 1950s. But it's clearly meant to be friendly to an audience including children. There was lots of violence -- even a person being roasted over a fire. But it was very tame in its portrayal. There was little blood, and the man being roasted didn't appear to suffer any burns. But the movie holds up really well for adults as a sort of fun romp.

The big thing about the movie is the claymation. I've seen lots some recent horror movies with lots of CGI. A Quiet Place Part II comes to mind. QPII had really good CGI monsters. Really scary and all. Yet somehow they didn't pack the visceral punch that they should have. The claymation monsters in Sinbad had a more obviously fake look, but they still seemed more real. I don't know the psychology or neurobiology of it, but CGI just can't match actual physical objects. At least not yet.

Regardless of the good and the bad in this film, I was left with one question in mind: "What does a cyclops need with gold?"

Ratings

Me: 8.5

Bob-O: 10

Christina: 10

Ethan: 8
Joe: 10

cinema history class: a clockwork orange (1972)

The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."

All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: A Clockwork Orange (1972)
Directed by Stanley Kubrik

My Impressions Going In:

I saw this film many years ago. Long enough ago that I had only vague memories of it -- a few vague images, including someone singing "Singing In The Rain" while smacking others with an umbrella, and of someone having his eyes forcefully held open. That said, I did remember the basic premise.

Plot:

In exchange for having his sentence commuted, a violent criminal agrees to be the guinea pig for an experiment in behavior modification.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I'm not exactly a huge Kubrik fan. Not that I'm an expert. I have liked or loved most of his films that I've seen -- Especially Dr. Strangelove. On the other hand, I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is hugely overrated—It's visually stunning and the whole Hal thing is really interesting, but it seems too intent 0n getting the science right and stunning the viewer with that. As a result, the storytelling suffers. Keeping in mind that I didn't care for what is possibly Kubrik's most celebrated work and that, having seen Clockwork (albeit a long time ago) and didn't have much in the way of firm memories of it, I didn't have the highest of hopes for it.

But watching again, it floored me.

First, let's talk about the use of color. The use of vivid -- overly vivid color creates an uncomfortable feeling of dissonance. The colors themselves are beautiful, and yet the images are so jarring that their vividness makes them ugly. And it starts at the very beginning, with the opening screen I've seen this in other films, notably Edward Scissorhands (1990) and Shock Treatment (1981), but rarely does it achieve such a profound effect.

The imagery itself is also both disturbing and beautiful. The nude tables in the milk bar, the choreographed brutality of the rape, the penis sculpture used as a murder weapon...all of these visually stunning elements serve to make the viewer squirm. 

Along with the visuals, the choice of music did a superb job of driving the mood of this film. The beauty of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony juxtaposed with the vicious cruelty of Alex' (Malcolm McDowell) gang helped to strengthen the dissonance I discussed above. Of course, that dissonance is actually part of the story -- the cruel, violent sociopath is completely enamored of Beethoven's Ninth.

Even Alex' narration helped serve this conflict. Alex is clearly intelligent and clever. He even speaks of the events with a dose of jolly humor. He seems almost likeable, despite being such an obviously horrible person. For me, of course, that's a joy. I have, on numerous occasions noted that I love watching films or TV with antiheroes. Alex happens to be more"anti" and less "hero" than most, but he is undeniably interesting.

At one point I noted that Malcolm McDowell, starring as Alex, reminded me of Mick Jagger. I note this because Keith told us afterwards that at one pint the plan was to have Mick Jagger star as Alex and the rest of the Rolling Stones support him as his gang. It's an interesting thing to think about, and it might have worked, though I suspect it would have hurt the band's musical career.

The whole movie seems to be a commentary and condemnation of the government -- a theme that, as far as I can tell, Kubrick revisited many times in his career. But aside from the heavy-handed message (which one may or may not like), it's a fascinating story and great to watch.

Ratings

Me: 10

Bob-O: 10

Ethan: 10

cinema history class: dracula a.d. 1972

 The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."

All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Dracula A.D. 1972 (1972)
Directed by Alan Gibson

My Impressions Going In:

I vaguely recalled having heard of this film.

Plot:

Count Dracula is brought back to life in contemporary London by a hippie who wants immortality.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I started liking DAD72 early on -- in the extended party scene, where the band Stoneground made their appearance. I wasn't actually familiar with them, but their music was catchy and upbeat. The scene lasted longer than it really should have, but it was infused with humor and did a good job of introducing the hippies who played such a vital part in the film.

Ethan noted that this was a relatively small scale movie as Hammer productions go. In retrospect I realize he was right. And yet I didn't notice that fact while the film was playing. So somehow they managed to work around that.

I was actually disappointed in one aspect of the ending. I was kind of hoping for the movie to come full circle, and show some anonymous figure gathering Dracula's ashes. It would have been poetic, and been great for setting up a sequel. But, alas, weren't lucky enough for that.

All that said, this is a Hammer film starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. So it can't help but be really good. 

Ratings

Me: 9

Bob-O: 9.3

Christina: 9.2

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 8

Joe: 10

to cloud or not to cloud

I'm trying to figure out what to do about data storage and preservation in the age of the cloud.

Until now I have pretty much eschewed cloud storage. It's not that I have any well-thought objections. It's just that I never got around to setting it up. Fearing that my computer can die and I would lose all my data, I have been making a half-hearted attempt at backing up on thumb drives. But I have made back-ups irregularly at best.

I started looking at the possibility of cloud storage. I have the accounts and the storage space available. But I haven't gotten around to figuring out what to do and how to do it. Fortunately for me, Sharon is pretty good with this and has friends who are better.

But after discussing this with her, I am still torn.

I have been storing all my data in one folder on my hard drive. I set things up that way on purpose, so that when I want to back things up it's relatively easy. I don't really care about backing up programs, since I can reinstall. But data? They can't be replaced as easily.

Until last night, I was under the impression that using cloud storage involved some kind of process of regularly syncing my computer to the cloud -- that I'd tell the software what folder(s) to back up and how frequently. Then, at some determined intervals a sync would happen. That's based on a paradigm that I witnessed for years. But after talking with Sharon, I learned that that's not the way this works anymore. The paradigm has shifted. Now, the cloud storage will show up in Windows Explorer as just another folder, and I'll be working with files that are stored somewhere else instead of in my computer.

This all makes me vaguely uncomfortable. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but the idea of my files not being on my computer makes me uncomfortable. Sharon pointed out some definite advantages to this scheme. Notably, with access to my ID and password, I can log into my cloud account on another computer elsewhere. There can be very useful. And storing things on the cloud can certainly make things safer than if I just keep backups on a thumb drive in my desk drawer. And yet...and yet...it still doesn't feel right.

I suspect that what I'll do is go to the cloud storage scheme as Sharon recommends, but periodically back up the cloud stuff on my hard-drive.

If anyone who sees this is tech-savvy and has thoughts on the matter, I'd be curious about what you think.

cinema history class: frenzy (1972)

 The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."

All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Frenzy (1972)
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

My Impressions Going In:

I was completely unfamiliar with this.

Plot:

Women in London are being strangled with neckties. And the police have the wrong man. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Quit laughing at me -- just because I hadn't heard of this Hitchcock classic. I attend this class to learn things I don't know -- not the things I do.

I have to hand it to Hitchcock. This had me on edge until the end. This was more thrilling than the other Hitchcock films I've seen. But that's probably a function of the fact that this was the early 1970s. I have a soft spot for movies from that era. And this is near the top. One of the interesting things about Hitchcock films  -- and I think it was Dave who made note of it -- is that they are mysteries where the audience knows exactly what is happening. The essence is that you know something that the characters don't.

Having said that, I did notice a couple of plot elements that didn't make sense. And they bothered me. But at least the ending was strong. The pith reminded me of the end of The Taking of Pelham 123, which is also a favorite.

What a fun ride!

Ratings

Me: 9.8

Bob-O: 9.9

Christina: 9.65

Dave: 9.9

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

wilko johnson -- r.i.p.

I don't generally make a habit of eulogizing celebrities in this blog, so it can be hard to recognize when I really need to do it.

But when a celebrity mattered enough to me that I named my cat after him -- well, that's a strong indicator. My cat Wilko is blissfully unaware that her namesake, Wilko Johnson, has passed away.

I remember when Wilko (the Johnson, not the cat) was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. It was about ten years ago, and everyone thought his death was imminent. I remember talking to Wreckless Eric about it, and saying that I should write him a letter telling him how much his music meant to me. Eric thought it was a good idea, but I never followed through. I should have.

In the event, Wilko lasted an unexpected decade or so -- apparently he had a rare nonaggressive form of pancreatic his disease. So in that time he wrote a memoir, performed and recorded what was arguably the best music of his career.

But that's not really where I want to focus.

I became aware of Wilko because of  Dr. Feelgood, the band that shot him to prominence. In England, anyway. Fickle fate never really accorded Wilko much fame in the US. But I'll ignore that. Dr. Feelgood was (technically, still is) a British R&B band, and Wilko was their original guitarist. I bought Dr. Feelgood's first album, Down by the Jetty, at a used record store in Manhattan. This was at a time that I was first getting really interested in rock music, and had taken an interest in the British pub rock movement of the mid 1970s. I saw Dr. F's name mentioned in the liner notes on a Ducks Deluxe album. Back then, that was all that was necessary to get me to try a band. I loved the gritty quality. In some ways they were like Ducks Deluxe, who had become my favorite band -- my rock and roll ground zero if you will. But they were different. In some ways they were more disciplined. Crisper. I have heard them described as being like the early Rolling Stones, or the George Thorogood, or The Blues Brothers band. 

Dr. Feelgood was, at the time, organized around an axis of two charismatic frontmen -- Wilko Johnson and Lee Brilleaux. The two of them shared vocal duties. Instrumentally, Brilleaux played harmonica. He also played occasional slide guitar. But Wilko was the band's primary guitarist. He had developed an unusual playing style. It was very choppy, but he would play rhythm and lead at the same time -- in effect sounding like two guitarists.

Dr. Feelgood quickly became one of my favorite bands -- in no small part because of Wilko. He was writing the bulk of their original material.

Sadly, Wilko's role in Dr. Feelgood ended in 1977. He left the group while they were recording their fourth album (including one live effort). It has never been clear to me whether he quit or the rest of the guys kicked him out. The catalyst was a dispute over what songs to include, but of course that couldn't be the entire story. I think I saw in a documentary that the pressure of writing songs for the group was getting to Wilko. One can speculate about other causes, but the bottom line is that Wilko was out of the group.

There was a possibility of a reconciliation, but that was not to be, as Wilko explained.

At any rate, the band replaced Wilko and soldiered on. In fact, an iteration of the band is still around today, having released a new album earlier this month. But, by the end of 1982 Lee Brilleaux was the only original member left. And he died in 1994. I think Gypie Mayo, the guitarist who replaced Wilko, was technically a better musician. And the group was still great. But they lost Wilko's distinctive sound, and I think that was a huge loss.

Wilko continued with other bands -- as frontman for the Solid Senders, as a member of Ian Dury's Blockheads. And he recorded a bunch of solo albums. My favorite among them was Ice on the Motorway. I remember first coming across it in a record store. These were the days before the world wide web, and it was hard to keep track of who had albums coming out -- especially when we were talking about British acts whose albums weren't being released in the US.

I never did get to see Wilko (or Dr. Feelgood, for that matter) in concert. That's a function of my age and the fact that I live in the US, as opposed to Europe. But I have spent many hours listening to the music Wilko made -- through all the various incarnations of his career. And I am thankful that I knew his music.

headquartered to death

This post is about the Monkees' third album, Headquarters.

Decades ago, when I was first buying records, I bought a used copy of the album on vinyl.

When Arista released it on CD, I bought a copy.

When Rhino rereleased it on CD with a few bonus tracks, I bought a copy.

When Rhino released a two-disc deluxe edition, I bought a copy.

When Rhino released a three-disc collection (focusing on studio outtakes) titled The Headquarters Sessions.

When Rhino released a two-disc deluxe edition, I bought a copy.

When Rhino released a three-disc super deluxe edition, I bought a copy.

Now Rhino is releasing a four-disc super deluxe edition.

Rhino can go fuck itself.

cinema history class: children shouldn't play with dead things (1972)

The session: "1972: Fifty Years of Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy."
All four movies in this session are from the year 1972 -- The year that brought us Richard Nixon's reelection, the ugliest baseball cards in Topps' history, and the Dow's first close above 1,000.

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972)
Directed by Bob Clark

My Impressions Going In:

I had very little familiarity with this movie going in. I knew the title -- my friends and I used to snigger about it when I was in college. I don't remember the context for sure. I think one friend showed us a collection of trailers for low budget films.

Plot:

A theater troupe is spending the night in a cemetery on an island off the coast of Florida. All is going well until the dead start coming to life. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

In a way, CSPwDT has a split personality. The first part was too slow and boring. It did have some clever dialogue, but there just wasn't enough to hold my interest. But once the dead started coming to life, the thing really took off. From that point forward it really took off.

The only problem with the second part is that it was too derivative of Night of the Living Dead. Others accurately noted that there were some creative touches thrown in. For example, the emergence of the dead from underground was exceptionally well done here. So one could argue that the second half is a well-done homage to Night. Maybe. I am actually willing to give the movie credit for its creativity.

But there are just too many weaknesses. Aside from the aforementioned plot issue and slow beginning, the acting was atrocious.

Ratings

Me: 6

Bob-O: 8.8

Dave: 9.6

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

two online utilities to recommend

 I don't often recommend websites  on this blog. While I may have done so in passing, I'm pretty sure I've never written a post with the aim of recommending an online resource. But I'm gonna do it now.

For those who don't want to bother reading my lengthy buildup, the two recommendations are faxzero (a tool for faxing documents) and combinepdf (a tool for combining multiple pdfs into one).

Now that I've given away the punchline, let me set up with a real world example. But first, let me note that I do not have a fax machine. I do have a printer/copier/scanner. In theory, it should be able to send and receive faxes, but those capabilities have been disabled. For practical purposes, I can't use the feeder to scan multiple sheets into one document -- it usually jams, and the image is usually of poor quality. I get much better results if I go through the tedious process of scanning each page separately in the flatbed.

So, party A sent me a three page pdf. They wanted me to fill out certain parts, then forward to party B to fill out other parts. B was then to send the document back to me so I could send it back to A. No, the form was not one of those fill-in-able pdfs. Filling stuff out had to be done by hand. Oddly, A was happy to conduct their end by email. But B wanted me to fax the document to them. Which makes no sense to me, since they were happy to email to me. But I didn't want to get into an argument over it.

In the end, the steps were:

• A emailed me the document.
• I printed it out.
• I filled out my sections.
• I scanned the three pages individually, creating three one-page documents.
• I used combinepdf to create one three-page document.
• I used faxzero to send the document to B.
• B completed their section, and emailed it back to me.
• I forwarded that email to A.

Both websites offered their services for free, though faxzero does charge if you want anything but very low volume. They were both very easy to use.

As free services go, I rate faxzero a nine and combinepdf a ten. Faxzero loses points because its free service limits you to five faxes per day, and faxes cannot be more than three pages long. To fax more you have to pay.

 

happy tunesday! i don't want to go to toronto

Fans of Dr. Demento (yes, invoking that name definitely dates me) are likely familiar with "Bulbous Bouffant," a little verbal sketch by The Vestibules that has gotten a lot of play on his show. "BB" has also been featured on at least one Demento-branded compilation.

We were talking about it and I wondered what else The Vestibules did. And I found this little gem, "I Don't Want to Go to Toronto." And I love it, so I figured I'd share it here.

I do note that I listened to some other stuff and came across "Something's Wrong with Gilligan's Island," which is also very entertaining (but not quite as entertaining). I bring this up because I note a very thematic similarity between the two. Both feature a grungy but catchy refrain and hook which is endlessly repeated. Over the refrain, someone shouts a litany of absurdist exclamations that support the title of the song. For example, "Something's Wrong with Gilligan's Island includes (among other things) the assertion that "The boat is no longer called "The Minnow." It's now called "The Daily Special Includes Soiup and a Salad!" I love it. I love both. But I wouldn't want to listen to a whole album of it back to back to back to... Inserted, mixed in with my music collection, it would be perfect.

Enjoy.

2022 stoopidstats 2: the new rankings

First of all, it's important to congratulate the Phillies. The franchise enjoyed its 10,000th win this year. They started the year with 9,935 wins, and won 87 during the year, bringing the total to 10,022.

On a similar note, the Miami Marlins won 69 games, so the geographic identifier "Miami" passed the 700 win mark, going from 653 to 722. Congratulations, "Miami"!

The Marlins and the Tampa Bay Rays combined for 155 wins. So the state of Florida, which opened the season with 3,947 wins, enjoyed its 4,000th, finishing the season at 4,102. Congratulations, Florida!

There were no new teams, and no franchise movement, so there was very little changing of ranking. But there was some. The Mets passed the Rangers to move into 19th place in wins. And "Miami," as a geographic identifier, passed "Anaheim" (which is no longer used by any team) to move into 32nd place.

But the big movement could be found in team nickname. The Cleveland franchise stopped using "Indians" after the 2021 season, replacing it with "Guardians," becoming the first ever major league franchise to use the "Guardians" nickname. They won 92 games this year, so the nickname now ranks 95th. Below are the nicknames that "Guardians" passed.

I plan to share my updated wins and games-over-.500 graphs in a future post. I find those graphs fun to look at, but they are kind of useless in terms of conveying useful information.

A note:
"N/A" is what I am using for the Chicago/Pittsburgh UA franchise from 1884. Some sources give their names as the Stogies (Pittsburgh) and Browns (Chicago). Following my general protocol, I would call them the "Stogies/Browns." But baseball-referenc.com doesn't give them a name. And since that site is my source for all truth, that is what I am going with. 

cinema history class: the house by the cemetery (1981)

   As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 4)
Movie: House by the Cemetery (1981)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

A researcher moves to the New England house formerly occupied by his colleague. And he gets more than he bargained for. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

First, the bad. I couldn't stand the kid. He seemed looked sort of like a cross between a demented version of Robbie Rist, rendered as a porcelain doll. And dubbed with a really annoying voice that doesn't sound right.

But other than that, this was a really great piece of the genre. Fulci is often referred to as the Godfather of Gore*, and he had definitely perfected it by the time he made this. The graphic shots of injuries are exactly the kind of thing that come to mind when I think of slasher films. It doesn't have the same kind of beauty that we saw in The Black Cat or A Lizard in a Woman's Skin, which we saw recently. The cinematography was good, but it was grittier than in the other films -- which works well. Going along with it, the music by The Goblin fits in well.

The plot was, arguably, too subtle. There were several lines that seemed to me to go nowhere, that Keith explained after the film. I'm kind of torn, since it would have been nice to understand these plot subtleties. But I also appreciate it when we don;t get hit over the head with things. Maybe a little more explicitness would have been in order.

I was really impressed by the way the ending played out. It had just enough vagueness to leave us all debating what exactly happened.

Ratings

Me: 9.5

Bob-O: 9.5

Christina: 10

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

______________________________

*Though, admittedly, Herschel Gordon Lewis is the first name most people associate with that title

wilko in mourning?

Wilko has developed this habit of crying over fuzzy toys.

In the video above, it's a bunch of feathers that had been tied to the end of a stick. Sometimes it's a fuzzy glove. Sometimes it's a sock.

Sometimes she'll hunch over with the toy between her front paws. Sometimes she'll carry it around. But she keeps meowing miserably. And she'll do it for a long time. I started the video above about a half hour after she started.  And she continued long after I stopped recording.

I have to wonder if she had a kitten who died?

cinema history class: the black cat (1981)

   

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 3)
Movie: The Black Cat (1981)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

A psychotic cat is killing people in northern England. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Before starting the film, Keith told us that the role of Professor Miles was originally intended for Peter Cushing. Cushing, however, turned it down because of Lucio Fulci's well-earned reputation for gore. The role went to Patrick Magee instead. I was disappointed by that revelation, thinking that it was a missed opportunity for Cushing to work his magic. But after all is said and done, I'm glad that Magee got the role. His gruff demeanor and gravelly voice were perfect for it. And I actually can't really imagine Cushing and his suave sophistication in the part.

As always, Fulci delivered on some beautiful shots, and the soundtrack is haunting. So this is an extremely atmospheric movie, and very engaging.

Where it comes up short is in exposition. The cat's motivation is never really explained well. Keith helped fill in the blanks. And the exposition in the trailer actually offers more explanation than the movie did -- which leads one to believe that there was an explanation that got cut out of the film as released. I also found some confusion in the way the movie seemed unsure of whether it was exploring some kind of science-based concept or something more supernatural. In the end, it included both, which kind of muddled things.

Still, even with those issues, it's hard to get over what a beautifully shot film this was.

Ratings

Me: 8.75

Christina: 8.1

Dave: 9.7

Ethan: 10

cinema history class: lizard in a woman's skin (1971)

  

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 2)
Movie: Lizard in a Woman's Skin (1971)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

Carol Hammond (Florinda Bolkan) is having a series of vivid dreams about drugs, orgies and murder. But she awakens to find herself in the center of a real life murder investigation. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The big strength of Lizard is its beauty. Lucio Fulci had a remarkable knack for beautiful shots. And Lizard is a series of great shots. In that way, it was a joy to behold. As a related note, a lot of the early scenes reminded me of the old TV show, Space: 1999 which, despite its myriad flaws, had some incredibly gorgeous scenes.*

Where it suffered was in the convoluted plot. In some ways I was reminded of Massacre Time, which we saw a week earlier. As I noted in my post about MT, there was a huge a-ha moment which explained a lot. Watching Lizard, I kept expecting the a-ha moment that would offer clarity. But that moment never came, and I was left frustrated. Well, to be fair, there were some minor a-ha moments. But none of those provided the kind of satisfaction I was seeking. Related, the plot is a little too clever (or convoluted, depending on how charitable I'm feeling) for its own good. And it tended to drag a bit too long.

Which is not to say that it wasn't entertaining. Just that it could have been better.

One note about the trailer above: It appears to be for Schizoid. But that's the same movie. In some countries it was released under that name. I think Lizard in a Woman's Skin is a better title.

Ratings

Me: 7.5

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 8

_____________________________

*Sadly, Space: 1999 was often incoherent, so its beautiful visuals often came in service of stupidity.

happy tunesday! "mary ann" by dr. feelgood

 

It's been quite a while since Dr. Feelgood, one of my favorite bands, put out a new studio album of new material. And now the Facebook arguments begin.

I say that because of the band's history. At this point the group has spent more than half of its life without any of the original members who made it famous. They were formed in 1971, but by the mid 1980's, frontman Lee Brilleaux was the sole original member. At that point the band had become Brilleaux and an occasionally changing lineup backing him. That changed when Brilleaux died in 1994.

After Brilleaux died, two of the members got together with another former member, hired a new frontman (Pete Gage, who was subsequently replaced with David Kane) and soldiered on. The group has been much more stable since Brilleaux's death, but albums have been less frequent. There have been three studio albums of new recordings since then: On the Road Again (1996), Chess Masters (2000) and Repeat Prescription (2006)*.

So, on Facebook groups I often see debates about whether, post-Brilleaux, the band's claim to the name is legitimate -- and whether they are worthy of the name. I stay out of those fights -- as I try to stay out of most fights on Facebook. In the case of this fight, the band is, officially, Dr. Feelgood. And they are, from what I can gather -- though I have not seen them perform live, a damn good R&B group.

At any rate, they have a new studio album, Damn Right!, coming out next month. From what I have read, it consists of all new material. Including this gem, "Mary Ann."

_________________________________

*And it's worth noting that two of these albums were, arguably, gimmick releases. Chess Masters was a collection of songs from the old Chess Records. Repeat Prescription was a collection of new renditions of the band's old material. 

cinema history class: massacre time (1966)

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Fulci Month (Week 1)
Movie: Massacre Time (1966)
Directed by Lucio Fulci

Plot:

Returning to his childhood home, prospector Tom Corbett (Franco Nero) is surprised by the changes.  Spaghetti ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Did you ever find yourself watching a movie, thinking that a lot of things don't make sense, when one line changes everything -- making sense of it all? That's what happens in Massacre Time. I kept wondering things like "why would he say that?" and "why didn't he kill him?" Some of these really bothered me -- the characters' actions and motivations seemed inexplicable. Then, maybe 80 or 90 percent of the way through, came the development that explained everything. I give the film a lot of credit for the way it did that -- teasing us, and then paying off.

The oddest part about watching this movie was the feeling that I was watching a Django flick. Django, the 1966 Spaghetti Western starring Franco Nero is -- depending on my mood -- either my favorite or second favorite Spaghetti Western. Because of its popularity, a lot of films in the genre were branded as sequels even though they are not related, were not produced to be sequels, and had protagonists not named Django and played by men other than Franco Nero. But this, released at about the same time as Django, actually felt like a real Django film. Franco Nero looked all Django-ey, and it had the same sensibilities. It even featured an opening scene that was very similar to one of the important scenes in Django. All it really needed was for Tom Corbett to be renamed, and it could very easily have been a Django prequel -- providing helpful backstory to the iconic character. Actually, if I recall Keith's comments correctly, it was branded as a Django movie in some of its European releases.

Ratings

Me: 9

Bob-O: 9.5

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 8

Joe: 10

happy tunesday: "tell me i'm the only one" and "it's a sick sick world"

 I just came across this on Youtube recently.

"It's a Sick Sick World" (from the 1989 album, Le Beat Group Electrique) is among my favorite Wreckless Eric songs. And here he is, in 1989, performing it. If I'm not mistaken, the other two guys are Andre Barreau (bass) and Catfish Truton (drums) who played on the album. I absolutely love this recording.

Of course, "It's a Sick Sick World" is actually the second song in the video. Before it comes "Tell Me I'm the Only One," which is also from Le Beat Group Electrique. It's a good song, but not as good. 

2022 stupidstats 1: what a great regular season it has been for new york fans

Baseball's regular season is over, and for New York fans it has been a pretty good one. The Yankees finished in first place in the AL East. The Mets, after leading the NL East for most of the season, got swept by Atlanta in the last weekend, and ended up in second place*. But they did win 101 games, and are in the playoffs.

But was it the best regular season New York has had? Who's to say.

I actually started thinking about it early this summer, when the Mets and Yankees were both doing well, and seemed to have realistic shots at winning their divisions.

Spoiler alert: I decided to look at the product of the two teams' winning percentages. If, for example, both teams have completely mediocre records of 81-81, then my statistic would be .250. That is, .500 × .500.

I wanted a statistic that captured both teams' performances. Obvious candidates are combined winning percentage and total wins. Both have some advantages, to be sure. Combined winning percentage is the better of the two because it normalizes for the length of a season. If both teams do very well in a season that's shortened by a strike or a pandemic, total wins won't reflect how good a season it was.

But both teams fail in one regard. I wanted a statistic that gives a better score if both teams do well than if one does very well and the other is mediocre. For example, I consider it a better year if both teams go 100-62 than if one goes 120-42 and the other goes 80-82. Total wins and total winning percentage doesn't capture that. But mine does. If both teams go 100-62, my statistic is .381. If one goes 120-42 and the other goes 80-82, my statistic is .366.

My statistic doesn't account for post-season performance, which is why I said (above) that this has been a pretty good regular season. If you care about the post-season, and most sports fans do, the 2000 was the best season for New York baseball in the Yankees/Mets era. My statistic also doesn't account in any way for a team's position in the final standings. Both teams finishing in first place is better than one (or both) finishing out of the playoffs -- regardless of record. And I will get to that point in a bit.

Based on my statistic, this has been the second-best regular season for New York since the Mets' inception. See the following table. For statistics that combine the teams' records, each item is shaded in green if it is the best so far.

In 2022, the product of the Mets' and Yankees' winning percentages is 0.381. That's second to 1998, when the product was .382. But 1992's result was driven by the Yankees, who finished at 114-48. The Mets were respectable, finishing 88-74, in second place. But that wasn't good enough to make the postseason, so by any reasonable account, this has been a better year.

So, I am open to hearing suggestions for other statistics to measure the goodness of a regular season for two teams. Of course, the two teams don't have to be the Mets and Yankees. For Chicago fans it could be the Cubs and White Sox. Or it can be any two teams. Someone who likes the Royals and the Marlins can look at the combined statistics of those two teams. And similar analyses can be done for a combination of larger numbers of teams. For 50+ years New York had three teams between the AL and NL. There's no reason one couldn't look at them combined.

For what it's worth, this has been the best regular season in two regards: It's the first time that both the Mets and the Yankees won at least 99 games. And the minimum of their two winning percentages—0.611—is the highest it's ever been.

__________________________________________________________

*They have the same record as Atlanta, but MLB's first tiebreaker is head to head record (which, by the way, is a stupid tiebreaker -- but that's another matter), so they are officially in second place.

cinema history class: the naked kiss (1964)

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Week 5, Christina)
Movie: The Naked Kiss (1964)
Directed by Samuel Fuller

Plot:

A prostitute ditches the business and tries to go straight. But is a nice simple life out of the life in the cards? Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The Naked Kiss has kind of a dual personality. It's got one of the most powerful opening scenes I can recall seeing. It was exciting and dramatic, and had me wondering what was going on. And, for what it's worth, its musical accompaniment was superb. After that opening, it slows down a bit -- which I suppose, is necessary. As thrilling as it is to be at the redline, you can't maintain that intensity indefinitely.

After that opening scene there's a stretch where the movie maintains a level of interest, but it does slowly weaken. The thing is, there's one moment -- maybe two thirds of the way through -- that just turns everything upside down. And from then on, it's a wild ride to the end.

It's important to remember that tNK is from 1964—a time when the code still limited movie content. Dealing with topics such as prostitution, pedophilia and abortion, it was envelope-pushing for its time. And I give it credit for that. I also give it credit for the tight dialogue that one would expect from a film noir.

Another favorite thing about this movie is the ambiguous portrayal of Griff, the cop (Anthony Eisley). I spent a lot of the film trying to figure him out. And every time I thought I understood him, something happened to change my perception. It was quite interesting. 

Ratings

Me: 8.7

Bob-O: 8.8

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 10

Joe: 10

Keith: 9.8

what really happened on june 14, 1987?

 I've been watching Seinfeld, the TV series, on Netflix. I never made a point of watching it in its original run. Over the years, I've seen a bunch of the episodes and lots of clips. I'm familiar with a lot of the catchphrases and the major characters. But now I decided to watch it from episode 1...start to finish. Except, I suppose, for that one episode in the last season that's unavailable because it offended people. I'll let Joe address that issue.

I'm in the third season; last night I watched the two-part episode, "The Boyfriend," in which Jerry strikes up a friendship with Keith Hernandez, the former baseball player. Part of the episode centers on Kramer and Newman hating Hernandez because they believe he spat at them after a game. The whole thing is played as a parody of the Kennedy assassination, and it's done pretty well. I won't go into detail, since that would take too long and I won't do it justice.

But the one thing that annoys me.

The episode would have you believe that, on June 14, 1987, the Mets lost to the Phillies because of a crucial error by Hernandez. In truth, on that date the Mets beat the Pirates 7-3 (in Pittsburgh). That totally ruins the plot for me (/sarc). Keith Hernandez played for the Mets for six and a fraction seasons. I can't help but assume that, during that time, there was at least one loss that could plausibly be blamed (at least in part) on him, and used for the plot. 

In fairness to the writers, I do acknowledge that the episode  was made in the early 1990s. Back then it wasn't so easy to look up what happened on any given date, or search to find a game that suits the needs of the episode. It's not as if I actually remembered what happened on that day. I looked it up on baseball reference. Were it not so easy to uplook such things, I never would have checked.

cinema history class: king of the zombies (1941)

NOTE:
Subsequent to posting this, I edited it to add the whole section about Bela Lugosi

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Cheap Thrills! (Week 4)
Movie: King of the Zombies (1941)
Directed by Jean Yarbrough

Plot:

Blown off course and low on fuel, pilot James McCarthy (Dick Purcell) is fortunate to crash land on a remote Caribbean island. Then he uncovers plots involving voodoo, zombies and espionage. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

This was really the Mantan Moreland show, which is both a blessing and a curse.

I've enjoyed Moreland's performances in other movies that I've seen -- including the sequel, Revenge of the Zombies. But this may have been too much of a good thing. A lot of times Moreland delivered a line and I kind of realized it was a laughline and snorted out a laugh, but then thought "wow, that wasn't really funny." At some point I just started rolling my eyes.

And that's where it would have been good to have a bigger audience. Ethan and I were the only ones who showed up for class this session. I might have enjoyed the jokes better if the other regulars were there -- laughter has a way of being infectious. And that might actually have been the key to this movie. It was made to be seen in a theater amidst a large crowd of people. No one involved was imagining a day when people would be streaming movies at home alone or watching DVDs in small groups in a basements. Maybe, in a theater, surrounded by people who are there to have a good time, I would have enjoyed the schtick more.

Beyond the fact of Moreland's schtick being the focus, the plot itself was kind of simple and unremarkable. The soundtrack was pretty good.

Keith noted before the movie started that the part of Dr. Sangre, which went to Henry Victor, had been written with Bela Lugosi in mind. And it's easy to see that in the movie. Victor goes through the entire movie in full on imitation of Lugosi. And I don't think that does the part justice. Lugosi would have been great in the part, and I probably would have given the movie a higher grade if Lugosi had been in it. But since it was Henry Victor, I would have preferred seeing Victor be himself.

Ratings

Me: 6.5

Ethan: 7

cinema history class: return of the ape man (1944)

  

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Cheap Thrills! (Week 3)
Movie: Return of the Ape Man (1944)
Directed by Philip Rosen

Plot:

Two scientists bring a frozen cavemen back to life, but they have very different ideas about what to do with him. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

The whole thing is kind of a good idea. In some ways it bears a strong resemblance to the Frankenstein story, with the ape man and his manufactured intelligence standing in for the monster. Bela Lugosi and John Carradine make an interesting team; Lugosi is always good. But the movie, enjoyable as it is to watch, is just not memorable.

Ratings

Me: 7

Christina: 8

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 8

Joe: 9.8

happy tunesday! un-grand canyon

"Un-Grand Canyon" is another in the series of recordings of songs that I wrote or co-wrote, which will appear on the album by "The Marc Whinston Project" (or whatever "group name" I choose to brand it with).

But this is unique. Most of the songs for the project were written only by me. There are also a few songs that are primarily mine, but that have coauthors. For the most part, these involved a little wordsmithing (by others) on a song that was almost completely written by me. I still think of those as "my" songs.

But "Un-Grand Canyon" is different. This is Christina's baby. It started with a poem she wrote, and I tried to turn it into a song. There was some restructuring, and I changed a few words. But the lyrics are hers. I set it to music -- the first time I had ever done that for someone else's words. That was a new challenge, as I really wanted to capture the drear that Christina wrote about.

I think I succeeded, but Toby's arrangement and Eytan Mirsky's vocals did a lot of the heavy lifting.

I am really looking forward to putting this on the upcoming album. I never could have written her lyrics; they are in a style that's alien to me. And the finished product is very different from anything else in the album project. The closest to it is "Five Missing One," but this sounds much better. It also mines a topic that I really haven't approached at all on my own, so in that sense it contributes to variety. Plus, it was my first attempt at setting someone else's words to music. And I am really pleased with the results.

longest streaks of winning seasons

 As I write this, the Yankees have won 87 games this season -- which means that they have now assured themselves 30 consecutive winning seasons.  A friend at work (who happens to be a huge Yankees fan) Noted this. He also noted that the longest streak of winning seasons ever enjoyed by a major league franchise was 39 seasons -- enjoyed by the Yankees from 1926-1964. He wondered what other teams have had long streaks. Have any others reached fifteen? Ten?

So I decided to compile a list of all streaks of ten or more consecutive winning seasons by any major league franchise. There have been thirty such streaks, all listed below:

In case you are interested in streaks of nonlosing seasons -- that is, the same analysis except including seasons where a team had a .500 record -- there are three changes to make:

The 13-season streak from 1879-1891 by the Chicago White Stockings/Colts becomes a 14-season streak from 1878-1891

Add in a ten-season streak from 1975-1984 by the Philadelphia Phillies.

Add in a ten-season streak from 2003-2012 by the Philadelphia Phillies.

Make of it what you will.

cinema history class: the ape (1940)

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Cheap Thrills! (Week 2)
Movie: The Ape (1940)
Directed by Jean Yarborough

Plot:

Kindly Doctor Adrian is working to cure a young woman's polio, but his work is ethically questionable. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I hate Danny. I fucking hate hate Danny. And in case I forget to say it, I hate Danny. 

For reference, Danny (played by Gene O' Donnell) is Frances' (Maris Wrixon) boyfriend. Frances is the young lady with polio, whom Dr. Adrian (Boris Karloff) is trying to cure. But Danny doesn't like it -- insisting that he likes Frances the way she is, and even acting in a threatening way toward Adrian. At the end, he comes around, and is grateful for Frances' being cured. But the transformation is too sudden, and I never got the feeling that Danny redeemed himself. And that's the only thing I really didn't like about this movie.

Otherwise, there's a straightforward plot that, though simple, touches on serious issues related to medical ethics. It's a lean movie, without any extra fat. Interestingly, in some ways it had the feel of a traditional American Western. Sheriff Halliday (Henry Hall), with his acerbic delivery and that metal star, seems like a Western movie sheriff, even if the setting and plot aren't really typical fodder for those kinds of movies. It all really worked well.

But fuck Danny.

Ratings

Me: 8

Bob-O: 9

Christina: 8.7

Dave: 9.5

Ethan: 8

Joe: 10

Jonas: NR

cinema history class: the devil bat (1940)

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Cheap Thrills! (Week 1)
Movie: The Devil Bat (1940)
Directed by Jean Yarborough

Plot:

Having taken a buyout from his company, chemist Dr. Carruthers has seen others get rich from his inventions. Now he wants murderous revenge using his bloodthirsty bats. Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

Devil Bat doesn't have any pretensions to greatness or delusions of grandeur. It's just a simple entertaining story designed to entertain. And it delivers. It's also batshit crazy.

The funny thing is that the basic premise is relatable -- and it's something we've seen in other popular entertainment. One important element of the Breaking Bad backstory is that Walt had sold his share of the company helped found, only to see his old partners get rich from it. And I've heard stories about the Apple founder who sold out early on. Of course, it's easy to feel sorry for people who missed out on big paydays. But I am sure there are plenty of cases where people help found companies and sell their ownership stake, only to see those companies fold and  fade into oblivion. Those stories, are, I am sure, way more common, but they don't interest us because there's no missed opportunity to see.

But I digress.

The effects are kind of silly. One might even say they're cheesy by today's standards. But they actually hold up really well. Better, I think, than CGI which in some ways looks more realistic. And I think they age better. It probably has to do with some subconscious reaction to models and rubber bats vs. the reactions to CGI.

But I digress. Again.

Bela Lugosi is a standout in a great cast, and PRC did a really good job of making a small budget film seem like much more than it is. This is really just a fun movie.

Ratings

Me: 8.2

Bob-O: 9.7

Christina: 9.1

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 8

Joe: 10

Jonas: NR

inked

Sharon went and got herself inked. As much as I wish she hadn't, I have to admit that I don't hate the damn tattoo as much as I thought I would.

I grew up with a strong visceral negative reaction to tattoos. In part, they weren't as mainstream then as they are now. But in addition, I grew up in a Jewish household and, culturally, tattoos were not a thing. It's not just a matter of religious law -- there are lots of religious laws that don't feel compelled to follow. But for many nonreligious Jews, tattoos are in a class separate from eating pork or driving on Saturdays. There is, after all, a widespread belief that if you have a tattoo you can't be buried in a Jewish cemetery. For the record, that belief is incorrect.

And some of my objections are purely practical. For example, I remember my high school yearbook photo. When it came time to choose a quote to go under my picture, I chose something that I thought was very clever and funny. I was sure that, decades later, when I looked back at it I'd smile at my creativity. In the event, I cringe and wonder how I could have done that. Considering that, I can't help wondering how much worse it would be if that clever quote had been permanently inked into my body.

I saw it -- Sharon's desire to get a tattoo -- coming. She hasn't exactly been secretive about it. There was a stretch that she was sure she wanted to be a tattoo artist when she grew up, and she has made money designing tattoos for other people. Also, a lot of her online friends (some of whom she has met in person) are inked. And she doesn't have the same reaction to tattoos that I have, and she's confident that -- even decades later -- she will still love her tattoo. At least I can take some comfort in the fact that it's a small ankle tattoo that won't interfere with her ability to get a "straight" job (assuming that's what she wants at some point).

And I have to admit that her design -- soot sprites from Miyazaki's Spirited Away is actually a decent design. I really want to hate it more than I actually do. But if you see her, don't tell her that. Just tell her that I hate it.

cinema history class: mr. klein (1976)

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Week 5, Ethan)
Movie: Mr. Klein (1976)
Directed by Joseph Losey

Plot:

Occupied Paris, 1942. An art dealer is caught up in a case of mistaken identity. The authorities think he's a Jew and they're closing in.  Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

I loved the drama and intrigue of Mr. Klein. What caused the mistaken identity -- pure (but unbelievable) coincidence? vendetta? other? It's never really explained. But in a sense that's part of what I like about the film -- instead of spoonfeeding explanations for everything, it leaves the viewer guessing.

I particularly enjoyed the way the main character, Robert Klein (Alain Delon) descends into obsession with the Jewish Robert Klein. He is on the verge of escaping, but he throws away his freedom in order to confront his namesake. Then, later, as his friends come through with the papers he needs to prove that he's not Jewish, he insists on following the Jews being herded to cattle cars. Certain that he—as a gentile—is invulnerable, and determined to face the Jew with his name, he climbs onto the train, bound for God knows what.

Others in the room felt the movie went off on too many tangents, and was hard to follow. They felt that the producers could have cut a half hour without losing anything. Maybe they have a point. In fact, if I had had the benefit of their comments before deciding my grade, I might not have given it a 10. But I make a point of deciding what I'm giving a film before I hear the others' comments.

There were, in retrospect, some points that were confusing. Others felt that Klein's father's reaction to questions of identity revealed—through the tone of his protests—that there really was Jewish blood in the family. I didn't see it that way. but it was interesting to hear that alternate interpretation.

I note that the disc we watched is in French with English subtitles. The subtitles were in white, which sometimes made them hard to read. I don't think the movie should be penalized for this, but it can affect an anglophone's enjoyment.

Ratings

Me: 10

Bob-O: 7.4

Christina: 7.2

Dave: 9

Joe: 9.5

Keith: 8

happy tunesday! you got the car (kasey chambers)

Things like this happen occasionally. I don't know how long I've had this CD in my collection. I have no idea when or how I got it.

Actually, I have one idea. Most likely I got it from freecycle with a bunch of other CDs. I then got the CDs home and went through them all, giving cursory listens to each and deciding quickly which ones were worth keeping. The Captain by Kasey Chambers was one of those that I deemed worth keeping. So I ripped it to my computer, boxed up the physical CD and forgot about it.

But when I work from home I have my computer playing music from my collection on shuffle. When "You Got the Car" came on, I was immediately struck by how much I like it. This is great pop music.

I also, for what it's worth, went to Spotify and addded the track to my "Assorted Stuff" playlist -- which is what I play from my phone when I am not by my computer. For example, when I work in the office, or when I'm driving.

Wow! That's a great track!

cinema history class: the last command (1955)

 

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Session: Bring Your Own Movie Month (Week 4, Bob-O)
Movie: The Last Command (1955)
Directed by Frank Lloyd

Plot:

Hopelessly outnumbered, a small contingent of American soldiers prepares for an attack by Mexican General Santa Anna.  Horror ensues.

Reaction and Other Folderol:

This movie incorporated a lot of fictionalized elements into the story of the Alamo -- a story which is part of the historical record. Most notable among these is a personal friendship between Jim Bowie and General Santa Anna. One can debate whether this was a mistake -- given that nature of the events, I can understand a desire not to make things up.

That said, I wasn't at all bothered by these liberties that were taken with the history. I would have a different opinion if the movie were billed as a documentary. In the evenbt, though, Bob-O did have to talk us through some of the depictions to separate fact from fiction. But he's the expert -- there is a reason he goes by the name "Bob Alamo."

There were times when the movie got a bit slow, but the fact is it held my attention throughout. And, though I knew the outcome, there were still enough interesting sideplots to build suspense.

Ratings

Me: 8

Christina: 8.5

Dave: 9.8

Ethan: 8

Joe: 10 (using his special genre scale, 9.8 in the real world)

Keith: 8.5