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!

More Comments on the 40th anniversary of the Novus Ordo Mass

To continue on the dicussion, we move on further with content.

We posted before on the key changes desired by Sancrosanctum Concilium, namely:

• a wider range of readings
• restoration of prayers of the faithful
• greater importance of the homily
• simplification of the rites
• more opportunities to use the vernacular (but emphasising the importance of Latin)
• Potential for concelebration
• Potential for Communion under both kinds.

All of these aspects have been achieved, although I think that it has failed on the rites being simplified as these have been supplanted by a muktiplicity of prayer options. To go from one Eucharistic Prayer to 12 in my view is a simplification. Possibly the symbolism of concelebration and Communion under both kinds has been overplayed.

Other aspects that are the bane of many commentators such as removal of Communion rails, Communion standing, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, and female Altar servers simply were not contemplated by the Council fathers and came in much later, and spasmodically.

On reading the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, and comparing it to the Tridentine Missae Rubricae, and the Anglican Book of Commoin Prayer, there is one large difference: the reorientation of the priest from one who leads the church's prayer (as seen in both the documents of the reformers of bother the Protestant and Catholic Reformations) to the idea of the priest "presiding over the community" and acting as some sort of chairman or MC. This is the fundamental flaw in the Novus Ordo Missae. It is from this aspect that we have problems with the liturgy serving the priest's ego, and the discussion on proper or improper orientation of Altars, and other aspects whihc have been liturgical problems over the years.

Where did this come from? The origins come from a "restoration" based upon achaeology in the 1960's whihc has since been debunked (ie. Mass "facing the people"), and an attempt to remove the differences between a Pontifical Solemn Mass from the Throne and other types of Mass. This was done by emphasising the idea that the priest is deputising for the bishop and therefore needs his own "throne".

The best way of course to remove this is to have the priests chair not face the people, and be restored to its more natural place on the Epistle side of the Altar facing North. This is made more effective by having an eastward oriented Altar.

Facing each other in a closed circle to talk to each other is not the essential thing that makes participation by the faithful effective. This simple reorientation is probably more effective than having a crucifix on the Altar or what is beginning to be fashionable in some cirlces of loading the Altar with heaps of candles in the attempt of reorientation.

Reflections on the 40th anniversary of the "Novus Ordo" Mass

On the 40th anniversary of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass there have been a few comments around the blogosphere. fr Z at WDTPRS has done a set of 3 podcasts which are well worth listening to.

Aftyer listening to these podcasts there are a number of things which come up in my mind. The first and which is more stark is that Paul VI did not seem to be confident about the reforms. This comes through in the addresses. It seems that he shares the annoyance and sadness of the changes with his audience, but is willing to accept the sacrifice as this was the will of the church as guided by the Holy Spirit through the Second Vatican Council.

The second aspect is the acceptance that the changes appear to be irreversable. This is an experiment to deepen the spiritual life of the church but there is no going back. There seems to be an acceptance that the older forms of the Roman Rite have gone forever (whihc of course they havent). He knows that he is moving into high risk territory here but is confident that the Holy Spirit will work things out.

Some of the comments are interesting in the light of 40 years. He suggests in his general audience speech that maybe people lost their appreciation of the Mass, and changes would break them out of their lethargy. In hindsight this was true - people got a new appreciation of aspects of the Mass, but also led to aspects which led to some extreme views on both sides of the debate. However, the great gift is that without these changes we would never have had the discussion and research into both forms of the Mass now that the 1962 Missal has been liberated by Benedict XVI.

There has been also discussions on the motivations for Bugnini et al with the changes. From what I read was that there were some positions held in the Consilium which were protestant in origin but that the Pope actaully reined in the Consilium so that the end product was at least catholic, and had moved from its earlier draft (which apparently wanted to remove the Kyrie and Gloria and the Orate fratres). Like everything done by a committee whihc then gets signed off by the CEO, there are a lot of changes along the way. This is something that hard-core traditionalists and conspiracy theorists dont get.

So in the light of the last 40 years truly the spirit moves in mysterious ways. People just want it to move in the way that they want - immediately.

I bet you watch that movie every year...

This year, I'm doing something I've never done before. I'm keeping track of every movie I watch.

I've always saved my ticket stubs when I've gone to the theater, but I've never actually written down every movie I've seen in a year. But at the end of 2008 when everyone was blogging about what movies they had seen over the course of the year, I found myself trying to remember, and guessing, and wondering about my movie log. This year, I'll know for sure.

And as I've been keeping track, I've confirmed what I thought last year anyway: while I like to watch new and new-to-me movies, most of my film time is spent revisiting my favorites. Yep. I'm a Rewatcher.

I've started wondering if others fit this pattern as well. Do you find yourself returning to familiar favorites often? Introducing them to friends, or thinking of some quote and then feeling compelled to watch the whole thing? Does some event or circumstance go along with a certain movie for you?

For me, some favorites that get a lot of play include the movie from which I've taken (and modified) my post title. In You've Got Mail, which I tend to watch when autumn comes around (Don't you love New York in the fall?) or anytime it's replayed on TV, Tom Hanks says "I bet you read that book every year" about Pride and Prejudice. (The BBC film version of which I happen to turn to whenever I am really sick, along with Laura.) I also seem to go on a Civil War kick maybe once a year, which leads to reviewing the whole Ken Burns' documentary, often followed by Gone With the Wind, which occasionally leads to the excellent The Making of a Legend. Add to all that the frequent plays of other favorites. And somehow I'm never bored with them.

I know there must be people out there like me, but I'm sure there are other movie watching types as well. Here's a few profiles I've sketched out:

The Rewatcher:
This type is content to watch the same movies over and over again. If the film was great the first time, why wouldn't it be great to watch again? Perhaps this person is comforted by the familiar, viewing favorite movies as old friends. Maybe he or she is delighted to discover new insights or nuances in the films that got worn out in the VCR. (And yes, this person still has a VCR. And doesn't want to re-buy everything on Blu-ray.) Maybe in an unsure world, the Rewatcher is pleased to know that some things always remain the same. This doesn't mean you will never get a Rewatcher to sit through a previously unseen film, but you'll probably have the most success if the new movie features actors he or she already loves. And if the Rewatcher likes the movie, it will quickly be added to the replay queue.

The Explorer:
Polar opposite of the Rewatcher, this type thrives on always finding something new to watch. They have no trouble at all picking up a random rental, borrowing from friends, or trusting that anything on TCM is worth adding to the DVR. This type is found waiting in line on opening night, wanting to be the first to see and review anything new. While this doesn't mean that the Explorer has no standards, he or she is probably pretty open-minded, finding something to like in almost any film. This type has a never-ending, out of control Netflix queue, and would usually prefer seeing something fresh, or something not watched in a while, instead of viewing the same favorites month after month.

The Picky Viewer:
Here's someone who doesn't mind waiting to see what the consensus is about a film before watching it. This person doesn't want to waste time on junk. He or she may take a chance on the recommendations of friends, if they haven't been burned by being disappointed in their taste before. Perhaps they rely on Netflix Movies You'll <3, or a critic they tend to agree with, or perhaps they only rely on their own judgment, being able to tell from the previews if a movie is worth their time. And if they don't like a movie? Look out. This type is critical. But that just may be the only pleasure the Picky Viewer can derive from watching a sub-standard film.

The Movie Date:
This is the most passive of movie watchers, content to go along with more opinionated friends and family when choosing movies. This doesn't mean that Movie Dates always like everything, or that they don't have their favorites, but in general they are the quiet ones more easily entertained, happy watching whatever as long as everyone else is happy.

What do you think, do you fit into one of these categories? Or are you a hybrid of the above, or perhaps in a category I didn't come up with yet?

Returning to blogging

Sorry for the silence but I have felt unable to blog for some time, due to work and general exhaustion.

I found some interesting comments from the New Liturgical Movement about celebrating using the Missal of Bl John XXIII for the first time.

As a "usus utroque" server I found the following points particularly relevant

....it seems that it is both a reminder and an aid which helps to foster, inculcate or re-emphasize a sense of our Roman liturgical culture -- and that is a thing of broad value.

I asked Fr. Johnson about his own experience of this moment and the training leading up to it; "I believe I'm hooked for life" was his response. Digging a little deeper, he noted the great deal of prayer and preparation which he made for taking this step, burying himself within the liturgical texts and ceremonies. He continued, "what the study of the EF [Extraordinary Form] of the Holy Roman Liturgy accomplished, was to help me develop a deeper understanding of the traditions of the Roman Liturgy, in general, and to understand more clearly where the Ordinary Form received its development."

Happy Anniversary to me!

Today marks the one year anniversary of the start of moviewings. This blog came out of a combination of events: Paul Newman had just died, and I found myself saddened and thinking about what the star and old movies meant to me. A good friend of mine had recently begun blogging, and while I knew I didn't want to create an online diary of my personal life (who'd want to read that, anyway?) I began to think about what I would enjoy writing about. If I wrote about movies, I thought, I would have plenty of things to say. So my first post came out of a desire to express my feelings on Paul Newman's death while opening up a creative outlet for me to talk about my love of movies.

One year and almost 70 posts later, I pause to look back. Finding the LAMB helped me not to feel like I was alone and talking to myself. A major makeover changed the look (but not the spirit) of the blog. In this year, I've learned a lot, like the fact that I'm not the only person who loves classic movies. (It turns out that many people are even more obsessed than I am, although classic film bloggers still seem to be in the minority.) I've had a lot of fun, especially highlighting some of my favorite Overlooked Oldies, doing some silly lists and memes, participating in the Lit Flicks challenge, and declaring January to be a Month O' Musicals. One thing I haven't liked is feeling sometimes that watching movies has become homework instead of entertainment (I don't always want to take notes and think of criticism as I watch a film.) But the blog has also moved me to widen out in the movies I've seen, and I've found some great new-to-me movies that way that I might not have gotten to otherwise.

So where do we go from here? The blog doesn't have an expiration date, but it also is not the only or most important thing in my life. It's very safe to say that I will continue watching films. And whenever I am so inspired to share my thoughts about what I've viewed, especially on the movies that give me wings, this is where I'll do it. Thanks for reading.

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!