Tally for '10

Yes, I know we're already a good three months into 2011, but I finally finished copying my movies watched/rewatched list from all my little scribbled post-it notes. For 2010, like 2009, I wanted to keep track of all my movie viewings. Here's my results:

141 movies watched

Of these, 38 were new or new-to-me
103 were rewatched

I only saw 4 movies in the theater:

• Avatar
• Toy Story 3
• Inception
• Tron Legacy

(and 3 of those were in 3D!)

Among the new-to-me watchings included these how-did-I-not-see-it-before classics:

• The Lady Vanishes
• His Girl Friday
• Ball of Fire
• Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
• Dinner at Eight
• Dead Reckoning
• Murder on the Orient Express
• The Prisoner of Zenda (1937 and 1952 versions, 1937 is superior!)
• In a Lonely Place

And there were 13 titles I (re)watched more than once:

• (500) Days of Summer
• Fantastic Mr. Fox
• Sense and Sensibility
• Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog
• Tron (in preparation for the sequel)
• Star Trek
• How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying
• Seven Days in May
• Back to the Future
• The 39 Steps
• Julie and Julia
• Desk Set
• You've Got Mail

Overall, I'm right in line with 2009, where I watched (shockingly) 141 movies also! That was made up of 45 new/new-to me and 96 rewatchings, only 2 in the theater and 12 different multiple rewatched titles. (And strangely, the only one that made the rewatching list both years is You've Got Mail!)

One thing that did change in 2010 was having Instant Netflix available. I will say that it changed how I watched movies and perhaps influenced which movies I chose, but overall my consumption seemed about the same.

Now that I know my baseline, this year I'm simplifying by only keeping track of new and new-to-me showings. I'm at 10 so far!

2009 Movie Consumption

As I mentioned previously, in 2009 I decided to keep track of every movie I watched during the year. Now that we're a few days into 2010, I've had time to process that list. Here's the results:

Number of movie viewings in 2009:
141 (45 new and new-to-me, 96 rewatchings.)

What's included in this number? See below (links are to my reviews).

Old movies I just discovered (or finally managed to sit down and watch all the way through):

• Anna Karenina (1935)
• The Asphalt Jungle
• Easy Living (1937)
  
• The Farmer Takes a Wife (1935)
  
• I'll Be Seeing You -- Watched while I was on a Ginger kick. Crazies on vacation find each other and fall in love, the moral being that if you settle for second best, it may just turn out to be first best. This movie includes what just may be the worst advice ever given by an aunt. The rather pedestrian script is elevated by the acting, especially Joseph Cotten's tender performance.
  
• Idiot's Delight -- I'd seen the clip of Clark Gable singing "Puttin' on the Ritz" before, but it was neat to finally watch it in context.
• Key Largo -- How did I never see this wonderful film before? I liked seeing a more subdued side of Bacall.
  
• Kitty Foyle
• The Lady From Shanghai
• The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)
  
• Meet John Doe
• Modern Times
• Ninotchka
• Random Harvest -- I was surprised at first by how much the movie differed from the book, but really the plot twists in the book would just not work on film.
  
• The Secret Garden (1949)
  
• The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) -- Loved Leslie Howard, not so keen on Merle Oberon. Favorite lines: "It rhymes!" "Oh, yes, it's a poem!"
  
• Son of Paleface -- The enjoyment here was not so much from watching the movie as from making fun of it.
  
• Stage Door
• The Women (1939)

(Guess I'm slowing working at rounding out my 1930's movie knowledge.)

A surprising number of documentaries:

• The Business of Being Born (recommended for anyone expecting or thinking of having a baby)
• Following Sean
• Man on Wire
• Maxed Out
• Seven Up (a few in the series)
• Word Wars -- Fascinating look at the world of competitive Scrabble, I watched this after I read the book Word Freak. The one moment that sums it all up is the interview of a young boy playing in a lower division of a tournament. When asked if he wants to make it to the top division someday, he explains how he doesn't want to become super obsessed to the point of not having a job (like the characters we've been following all along). Ouch.
• And from Ken Burns: Jazz, The National Parks, Lewis & Clark

Movies made in 2009 that I actually managed to see in 2009:

• He's Just Not That Into You
• Julie & Julia
• Star Trek
• Up -- I love how Mr. Fredricksen looks like Spencer Tracy, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner era. The brilliant visual storytelling that sets up the background of Carl and Ellie is the best part of the film, and leaves me teary-eyed every time.
  

(Of these, only Julie & Julia and Star Trek were actually seen in the theater.)

Some other new-ish movies I watched:

• Chicken Little
• The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
• Flash of Genius
• Last Chance Harvey
• Metropolis (2001 anime)
• Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day
  
• Music and Lyrics
• Radio -- Touching based-on-a-true-story movie.
  
• Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

The Worst Movies I saw in 2009:

• The Magnificent Ambersons (2002)
• Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist -- I hated this film. Perhaps I'm just not the intended audience, but this movie has the distinction of being the only movie this year I couldn't even watch all the way through. I didn't think it was at all charming but instead found it gross and vulgar and turned it off. (I weep for the future.)

Movies I hadn't seen in a while that I was really happy to rewatch in 2009:

• The Absent-Minded Professor (1961)
  
• Benji -- I'm a sucker for cute dogs. And "I Feel Love" is such a great 70's theme.
• Breaking Away
• It's Always Fair Weather
  

Double Rewatched:
(I did a lot of rewatching of old favorites as always, but I revisited these movies more than once in the year.)

• Alice in Wonderland (1951)
  
• The Apartment
• Casablanca
• Double Indemnity
• Gone with the Wind
  
• Laura
• The Maltese Falcon
• North by Northwest
• The Third Man
• The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
  
• WALL-E
• You've Got Mail

That's it for my list. I'm glad I kept track of the movies I watched in '09, and now I'm already two movies into 2010! This year I'm sure I'll keep rewatching my favorites while supplementing with Netflix, and maybe I can catch a few more flicks while they're still in theaters. Hopefully it will be another good year for movies... and Moviewings!

The Women -- Movie Chain Review #1

Chain chain chain... chain of reviews...

I've had this idea in my head to start a Chain O' Movie Reviews. What does that mean, you ask? Well. Often for home film festivals I'll create my own movie marathon by chaining together films with a common link. It's kinda like TCM does with a day or month dedicated to one star, but instead of sticking to just one actor I'll chain together film after film with different links in between. Say I start with The Philadelphia Story, then I might move on to Notorious (Cary Grant is the Link) and then I might move on to Casablanca (Ingrid Bergman as the Link). It doesn't just have to be actors as links, either; you can chain directors or even themes back to back (ex: movies with a lot of rain, or perhaps a movie and then the remake). Anyway, I thought it would be fun to carry this habit of linking movies to the blog world. How will it work?

I'll kick things off here with a movie review, the first link in the chain. If you want to join in, after that you'll have to:

1. Call dibs on doing the next review in the comments. First one to speak up gets it, others will have to wait to join up to the next link in the chain! (Chains usually only link one at a time, after all. It's not a movie review tree.)

2. Write your own review of another movie (it should be one not yet used in the chain) and post it on your blog. Make sure the link to the previous review is made clear and that you link back to the original post where the chain began (so we can keep track of how the chain grows). The link can be an actor or actress, director, or something more creative (like a theme).

3. Include the rules of how to continue the chain, and let someone else continue it!

Simple enough, right? Let's get it started!

Movie Chain Review #1: The Women (1939)

Link: First link in the chain, not connected to any reviews (yet).

Review: I found the opening credits of this movie so helpful. As the actresses are introduced, each is paired with an animal that represents her character. So right away you know who's the deer, who's the fox, and who's the old cow. I think more movies should do this.

The word at the beauty parlor, where "Jungle Red" nail polish is all the rage, is that Mary Haines (Norma Shearer) has a husband who's stepping out on her. When Mary's friend (I use the term loosely here) Sylvia (Rosalind Russell) hears about this, she relishes the gossip and eventually sets things up so Mary will hear the rumor.


Mary has been blissfully happy in her marriage to Stephen and as mother to Little Mary (Virginia Weidler). Can she just pretend that nothing is going on and continue her life? Not once she has met the other woman, Crystal Allen (Joan Crawford). The two have a showdown and Mary, choosing pride over love, ends up on a train to Reno. Mary's sweet friend Peggy (Joan Fontaine) is surprisingly also along for the ride, as well as two other women getting divorces: Miriam (Paulette Goddard) and the often-married but still-romantic Countess Flora. The women bide their time at a dude ranch (!) while waiting for their divorces to become final. (Is it wrong to say I was a little happy when Sylvia showed up there as well?) Who will reconcile, who will move on, who will fall in love again? I'll leave the final twists for you to discover.


The joy of the movie for me was not so much in the plot as in the performances. Director George Cukor is completely in his element here with a dialogue-heavy, all female (even the dogs and horses?!?) production. (Interestingly, Cukor was only available for this movie because he was replaced as director of Gone With the Wind. Paulette Goddard too would have only been available here since the one-time frontrunner for the role of Scarlett O'Hara lost out to Vivien Leigh.)

While the actresses are all great in their roles, I was particularly taken with Norma Shearer. How could anyone leave her for Joan Crawford? Impossible.


One thing I didn't really like about the movie was the idea of giving up your pride for love. Maybe occasionally one has to choose, but then, that wouldn't be the case if people just behaved better. Which brings me to what I really didn't like about the movie: the way it portrays female relationships. Maybe it's true that women can be a bit catty, even toward their friends. This movie certainly highlighted that! We've got "friends" gossiping about each other, men-stealing, gold-digging, and dubious advice getting passed along (even from mother to daughter). While all of this does make for an interesting story, I found myself wishing more positive aspects of female friendships could have been included as well. Maybe the estrogen overload just started getting to me after a while. I missed the men.

Final analysis: see it for the great actresses/performances, but don't model your life/love/friendships after it.

Rating: (Although I'm kinda wishing I had made half wing ratings, because this feels more like 3.5 to me.)


Now, what movie will be the next review in the chain? There's plenty of links here to pick from!

What's better than a witty woman?

A bunch of witty women, of course! And it seems that the only requirement for being able to stay in the Footlights Club boarding house in the movie Stage Door is this: You must be a wise-cracking female. (OK, you must be an aspiring actress, as well.)

Katharine Hepburn as Terry Randall passes on both counts. She waltzes into this world of theater hopefuls with a few minor differences: she has money and she takes her craft seriously. She quickly butts heads with the girls, particularly her down-to-earth roommate Jean (Ginger Rogers). The women in the movie date, dish, and dream of landing the perfect part, with mixed results.

Less important to the movie than the overall plot is the sheer star power and the sharp writing. In addition to Hepburn and Rogers, the women at the Footlights Club include Eve Arden, Lucille Ball, and Ann Miller. (I'm almost ready to believe they really did all live like this, waiting to get their big breaks.) And here's just a sampling of some of the endless snappy dialogue:

"Evidently you're a very amusing person."

"Unfortunately I learned to speak English correctly."
"That won't do you any good here, we all talk Pig Latin." (Ginger isn't bluffing.)

"If it's not food, it's men. Can't you talk about anything else?"
"What else is there?"

"May I come in?"
"Oh, sure, I guess you'll be safe. The exterminators won't be here until tomorrow."
"How did they miss you on their last visit?"

One other very minor thing I loved about the movie: Ginger's character sleeps with a little doll! Sure, she's a hard-talking, ambitious, independent woman making it in the big city. But when it comes right down to it, she's still just a little girl with dreams.

Stage Door is one of those movies that lived for a long time on my Mostly-Seen list; that is, I had seen bits and pieces of it here and there and had a vague idea what it was all about. The sad thing about the movies populating this list of mine is that when I finally take the time to watch them from start to finish, I am almost always pleasantly surprised by the bits I'd been missing and wonder why I didn't watch the whole movie sooner. Stage Door was no exception, and I've happily moved it from my list of Mostly-Seen Movies to the Finally Watched! list.

4/5 wings

Book vs. Movie: Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre was already next on my Lit Flicks Challenge list, but when I happened to be the October giveaway winner and The Bluestocking Society kindly sent me the book (thanks, Jessica!) I wanted to get to it right away.

Before reading or seeing Jane Eyre, I did have some idea of the general plot: Jane is a governess who comes to work in a creepy house for a brooding man with a big secret. (It's a good thing I knew the secret, too, since my copy of the book included an introduction by Joyce Carol Oates that revealed all the major plot details and many of the twisty bits. Seriously, there should have been a spoiler warning with it -- surely there are some people reading the book for the first time with no idea what it's about who would like to enjoy a few surprises.)

Since I did know how the story would go, I was afraid that reading through the book would be tedious, but I actually enjoyed it very much. The way it's written (as a first-person account of Jane telling the reader her story) felt very intimate and interesting. The only time it didn't work for me was when the big secret is revealed; during this time things seemed a bit rushed and Jane's reactions didn't come until later. All I can assume is that she was struck and in shock, but coming to know the characters I think more would have been said and thought during this critical time.

If you don't like Jane, you will probably not enjoy the novel, but I really liked Jane. I liked her strong will and character. I also liked Mr. Rochester, despite his dubious past and the way he deceived Jane. Maybe I like him because Jane does, or because they do seem like a well-matched pair of intellectual equals. You can analyze a lot more about the various themes of the novel, like what it says about religion, morality, duty, forgiveness, and marriage, but I was happy enough to read through the rest because I really liked Jane and Rochester, and I wanted to see their love story play out.

The movie version I chose to watch was the 1944 adaptation, mostly because it stars Orson Welles, and I really like him. He is great as Rochester; he can carry off the speeches and he has the right amount of darkness and intensity to him. I was also delighted to see Agnes Moorehead, a young Elizabeth Taylor, the little girl from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Peggy Ann Garner) and child actress Margaret O'Brien, adorable as Adele. I wasn't particularly impressed with Joan Fontaine as Jane, though. (She also starred in Rebecca, based on the Daphne du Maurier novel which seems at least partially inspired by Jane Eyre.) Fontaine's Jane is much too meek and is really overpowered by Welles' Rochester. This removes what I enjoyed most about the novel, the match of equal minds that defines the relationship. In the novel, Jane is independent and holds her own against Rochester; in the movie I couldn't imagine what he saw in her, really.

I know it's always hard to show inner thoughts and feelings of characters in a movie, but I really missed how the book explains what's going on in Jane's head. Another thing that annoyed me about the movie: at the beginning, a book is shown onscreen and a voice-over reads what is written on the page. But the passage is way different from the book's opening. At other times during the movie, this same technique is used again. The voice-over alone would have been fine, but the suggestion that what is read is from the novel was really irritating. While I do understand the need to change and condense things when making a book into a movie, if you aren't remaining faithful to the book, don't show me text in a book as though you are staying completely true to the story. (Rant over.)

So, when it comes right down to it, does the book or the movie prevail? While the 1944 movie is beautifully shot and appropriately dark and atmospheric, it is also perhaps more melodramatic than even the crazy twists of novel would allow. The acting is mostly good, and it is fine as a movie, but overall I preferred the story in novel form. However, there are a lot of other Jane Eyre adaptations, and perhaps some do more justice to book. (I am intrigued by the version with George C. Scott because to me he really fits the description of Rochester: not exactly handsome, yet intense and strangely magnetic. If anyone's seen this version, or another adaptation, let me know what you thought.)

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Jane Eyre, I'd like to recommend Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair. It's the first of his funny Thursday Next series, which features a literary detective in an alternate reality where characters from books are quite real and traveling into the world of a book is physically possible. This story deals with Jane Eyre's kidnapping and the changing of the famous novel's plot. I want to re-read this now that I've finally read Jane Eyre.

So, that's two down for Lit Flicks, three more to go. I think I might deviate from my original list and choose something different for my next pick... stay tuned!

Review: Rachel and the Stranger

I'm not usually a big fan of Westerns, but since I do like both William Holden and Robert Mitchum, I decided to give Rachel and the Stranger a chance.

Holden plays David Harvey, a widower so worried about his young son growing up wild and woodsy without a woman around that he heads into town one day determined to return with one. What he gets (for a price) is the bondswoman Rachel (Loretta Young). Since it wouldn't be decent for them to live together unmarried, he weds her, although it soon becomes clear that she will be treated more as a servant than a wife.

Rachel is eager to please, anxious to find out and fulfill what is expected of her. She becomes determined to learn how to shoot, hoping that by doing so she will win over her stepson, and, through him, her husband. Despite her efforts, she is pretty much ignored.

That all changes when Mitchum's character, Jim Fairways, shows up for a visit. He's a wandering hunter and an old friend of the family. In fact, he was a rival for the affections of Big Davey's first wife, and history soon repeats itself as Fairways takes a liking to Rachel. Fairways expresses his intention to get a wife of his own and heads off to town for this purpose. During a strangely sunny evening scene, the now jealous Big Davey begins to show more interest in Rachel, although he tells her that he is not ready to fall in love again.

Fairways soon returns, sans wife, and during an extended stay with the family he shows himself very attentive to Rachel. He soon offers to buy her from Davey so he can marry her himself. Although Rachel had seemed to enjoy the attention from Fairways (he kindly treated her like a person by talking with her, playing music with her, and teaching her how to shoot properly) she now turns on Fairways and calls him lazy.

While the two men fight over her, a disgusted Rachel runs off, and soon the men are on her trail. Even though the trip to town and back was made easily in a day before, everyone ends up camping out that night and the two men have a chance to express how they feel. Fairways professes his love while Big Davey is only able to appeal for Rachel to return to keep Little Davey and the dogs from missing her.

Soon all this nonsense is forgotten as a fire is spotted and the men head back to the cabin to protect it from an Indian attack. While Little Davey heads off to get the help of the townsfolk, Rachel bravely (and rather foolishly) returns to help fight off the Indians. Although unable to save the cabin from being set on fire, the three members of the love triangle live through the night unharmed. In the morning, Fairways the lonely wanderer heads off again, but not before delivering a creepy line about how he's a hunter putting the meat on other men's tables. Rachel remains with her husband and stepson, and Big Davey refers to her as Little Davey's Ma, providing hope for her being treated as a real wife now.

The movie was fairly enjoyable overall, with good acting and nice singing by Robert Mitchum. I didn't like some of the underlying ideas of men being driven to love by jealousy and women having to choose between romance and security. Fans of the actors would probably enjoy watching Rachel and the Stranger, but as the story is somewhat lacking in depth and emotional payoff, I would definitely categorize this film as a lesser classic as opposed to a must-see movie.

Book vs. Movie: The Grapes of Wrath

First up on my Lit Flicks Challenge list (and my first rental from Classicflix) is The Grapes of Wrath.

This is one of those classics I can't believe I missed for so long, both in book and movie form. I had seen clips from the movie somewhere, and what I had stuck in my head was the close-up of Henry Fonda's earnest face making his "I'll be there" speech. My impression going in: this story has a Message. And so it does.

The focus is on the Joads, a family forced away from their farmland home, journeying to California to become migrant workers. While the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression are pretty heavy subjects, I was still surprised by just how raw the novel is. It's an unsanitized look at these people with all their flaws and problems. And as gritty as it is, I believe that it could have been worse, given the hardships that are hinted at which the Joads manage to avoid.

In the book, in addition to the chapters that follow the Joad family's journey, there are also shorter chapters that take a less personal, larger view of the problems of the times. Some of these were very powerful and worked quite well. I especially liked the chapters on the used car dealership and the roadside diner. As I progressed through the book, however, I began to feel that this device was wearing thin, and that Steinbeck had run out of things to talk about in these bigger-picture chapters.

Overall, it's a well-written novel about a serious subject. And it did get me wrapped up in it so that I was really feeling for these characters. I particularly liked Ma, even from her first appearance in the book. In her introduction, we are told that "her hazel eyes seemed to have experienced all possible tragedy and to have mounted pain and suffering like steps into a high calm and a superhuman understanding." The story gives her a lot more steps to climb. I preferred book Ma to movie Ma, but I liked Tom Joad in both versions very much.

Before seeing the movie, I was worried about Henry Fonda's performance, especially his ability to speak in the country dialect of the book. Maybe it's because the clearest picture I have of Fonda is as the very intelligent, articulate character in 12 Angry Men. But he handles the role of Tom Joad brilliantly, never seeming above it while still bringing out a certain sincerity with dignity that is important to the character. Fonda's performance is wonderfully restrained yet powerful, beautiful against the often over-the-top, make-your-eyes-as-wide-as-possible-for-effect acting going on in this movie. With the exception of the bit where he sings, I found Henry Fonda's performance riveting, and for that alone I would recommend watching the movie.

Would I recommend the book? Yes, although with some hesitation. The novel is really depressing. As I progressed through the book, I found myself anticipating with dread the next tragedy that would befall the family. The book has an interesting theme about sin versus holiness that is nowhere near as prominent in the movie. Both stories show that people do better helping each other, although the book drives the point home harder. Sure, we've all got to eat, but only looking out for your own is selfish and doesn't work for the greater good, we get it. The movie, while still serious, has some lighter moments to it, like Grandpa explaining what he'd like to do in California and the family's reaction to Tom's homecoming. The movie also has a much different ending.

The book's ending is a bit of a shocker; I won't spoil it here in case you haven't read it yet, although I will say that it made me feel that a certain thing was set up in the book only for the ending, which felt somewhat cheap to me. The ending does fit in with the rest of the novel and provides some hope for the future, but the whole thing is still pretty bleak. Which I suppose is the point -- the issues faced by these people could not be easily fixed. The movie's ending is more hopeful and uplifting, although it didn't ring as true to me. Also, in both versions of the story, I was disappointed that Tom's part is finished up before the end.

So, what's the final verdict, book or movie? Both. The story in either form is an interesting look at a difficult time in history. The book definitely has more meat to it and a bigger agenda; the movie is a bit more entertaining while still illuminating the subject. While I don't think I'll be coming back to either book or movie soon, I'm still glad I checked out both versions of this classic American story.