Twitter assaults are unfortunately par for the course if you write any kind of opinionated column. The toxicity is such these days that you’re almost certainly doing something wrong if you don’t get hated on now and then. So I’m used to slings and arrows. But once in a blue moon and in a weak moment I’ll temporarily succumb to a fantasy in which I’m Jake LaMotta destroying Tony Janiro. But it never lasts for more than a few seconds. Because of I always think of that moment in Barry Lyndon when Ryan O’Neal is coolly shunned by a certain fellow of wealth and position after that concert recital in which he beat the hell out of Leon Vitali in front of several powdered-wig guests.
I didn’t attend the Cannes Film Festival midnight screening of the 4K remaster of Stanley Kubrick‘s The Shining. I heard something about it possibly containing that deleted hospital room scene between Shelley Duvall and Barry Nelson (which I saw 39 years ago at the Warner Bros. screening room in Manhattan), but I guess not. It was drawn from a new 4K scan of the original 35mm camera negative. The mastering was done at Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging. The color grading was done by Janet Wilson with supervision from Kubrick’s former personal assistant Leon Vitali. The 4K disc pops on 10.1. I wouldn’t mind owning it, but the Bluray has always looked fine. I’d like to believe the 4K will deliver a bump, but I don’t think it will.
In Bilge Ebiri‘s 6.27 Vulture piece about the Eyes Wide Shut orgy scene, Leon Vitali reveals that Cate Blanchett looped the dialogue of Amanda Good, who played the “mysterious masked woman” at the orgy. Remember her voice? She defended Tom Cruise during the ceremonial interrogation scene by shouting, “Let him go! I’m ready to redeem him!”
That voice, according to Vitali, belonged to Blanchett. Except Good didn’t play “Mandy”, the woman whom Cruise treats for a “speedball” overdose in an upstairs salon inside Sydney Pollack‘s home during that black-tie party scene. According to an 8.27.99 Independent piece by Charlotte O’Sullivan (as well as Google), that role was played by Julienne Davis.
Who played the naked and dead Mandy in the morgue scene, Davis or Good? I’ve read Ebiri and O’Sullivan’s articles twice, and they don’t say. (That or I need a nap.) I’ve found some links and captions that claim Davis played “morgue Mandy” so let’s go with that.
What convinced O’Sullivan that “speedball Mandy” and the “mysterious masked woman” were different actresses? Excerpt from fourth paragraph from O’Sullivan’s piece: “Sight and Sound editor Nick James knew the Mandy we see at the beginning of the film was not the same woman as that at the orgy. How? ‘Because they had different pubic hair‘.”
HE insert: Is there some way that p.c. investigators can track down the 20-years-older James and prosecute him after the fact for being a sexist scumbag? Who notices such things? We need to threaten this guy with career death in order to correct his behavior.
O’Sullivan to Davis: “Did Abigail take over from [you]?” Davis to O’Sullivan in an outraged tone of voice: “No — it’s all me. Abigail Good was just an extra. And anyway, she’s English.” (HE: The mysterious woman has an American accent — Blanchett’s!). Davis: “It’s hilarious. It happens a lot, people try to take credit for things they haven’t done”.
Good to Ebiri: “When all the other girls left, I was in this amazing position of being able to work with two incredible artists. I was on the set with Tom and Stanley, finding things on our own. Stanley asked my opinion a lot. Me and Tom were among the last people he ever filmed. Stanley died before the dubbing was done. And I always wondered before the film came out whether they were going to dub me, because I didn’t have an American accent.”
Vitali to Ebiri: “It was Cate Blanchett…that was her voice. We wanted something warm and sensual but that at the same time could be a part of a ritual. Stanley had talked about finding this voice and this quality that we needed. After he’d died, I was looking for someone. It was actually Tom and Nicole who came up with the idea of Cate. She was in England at the time, so she came into Pinewood and recorded the lines.”
BTW: Despite the assertions in several articles posted yesterday and today, Blanchett’s looping of Good didn’t constitute a “cameo” — and it still doesn’t. A cameo is when an actor briefly appears in a film (doing or saying something of momentary consequence) and then disappears. Looping someone is not a “cameo” or vice versa.
A little while ago I walked over to the Debussy for a 10:45 pm screening The Shining. I wanted to see Stanley Kubrick‘s eerie-vibe classic on a big screen again, and the 4K digital remastering made it look…uhm, as good as it ever has. I was half-hoping for some kind of slight bump, but after 20 or 25 minutes I was admitting to myself “this looks fantastic, but it doesn’t look any better than my Shining Bluray does on my Sony 4K HDR 65-incher.” So I excused myself and went back to the pad. Sleep is more important.
Update / correction: The 4K Shining isn’t a “restoration” but a remastering. It was created from “a new 4K scan of the original 35mm camera negative at Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging. Filmmaker Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick’s former personal assistant Leon Vitali worked closely with the team at Warner Bros. during the mastering process.”
These days all Cannes Classics selections are recently restored in 4K — that’s pretty much a given. So which 2019 selections seem especially enticing?
A 4K restored version of Dennis Hopper‘s Easy Rider will be shown on the 50th anniversary of the film’s Cannes debut. HE factor: Great news about the 4K upgrade but I for one never had the slightest problem with the previous Bluray versions so I’m having trouble feeling worked up. Peter Fonda, 79, will attend the screening.
A 4K remaster of Stanley Kubrick‘s The Shining will be shown (a midnight screening) with a special introduction from Alfonso Cuaron. The 4K remastering used a new 4K scan of the original 35mm camera negative. The mastering was done at Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging. The color grading was done by Janet Wilson with supervision from Kubrick’s former personal assistant Leon Vitali. HE factor: Can’t get worked up over this either. The Bluray has always looked fine.
You know what would turn me on? A boxy (1.37:1) Bluray version. Remember how Kubrick was into boxy aspect ratios, and that a boxy Shining was in fact released on DVD 15 or 16 years ago (or something in that realm)?
Three restored Luis Bunuel films will be shown this year: Los Olvidados (restored by The Film Foundation’s World Cinema Project at L’Immagine Ritrovata in collaboration with Fundación Televisa, Cineteca Nacional Mexico, and Filmoteca de la UNAM), Nazarín (3K Scan and 3K Digital Restoration from the original 35mm image negative, mastered in 2K for Digital Projection) and L’Âge d’or (4K restoration by la Cinemathèque française and le Centre Pompidou, using the original nitrate negative, original sound and safety elements). HE factor: I would love to watch a mint-condition L’Age d’Or.
A restored version of Lina Wertmüller‘s Seven Beauties (’75). Wertmuller, 90, will introduce with star Giancarlo Giannini in attendance. HE factor: If it all possible, I’ll be attending.
Vittorio De Sica‘s Miracle in Milan (’51) will be screened. 4K Scan and Digital Restoration from the original 35mm camera negative and a vintage dupe positive. Color grading supervised by dp Luca Bigazzi. HE factor: Later.
A 4K digital restoration of Milos Forman‘s Loves of a Blonde (’65) will be shown. Restored in partnership with the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival and the Czech Film Fund. A doc about Forman’s career, Forman vs. Forman, will also be shown. HE factor: I’ve always worshipped Loves of a Blonde. Very interested.
Before last night’s On The Basis of Sex guild screening I sat down with Bill McCuddy and Neil Rosen of “Talking Movies.” The topic was mainly the Broadcast Film Critics Association documentary awards, which are happening on Saturday in Brooklyn. A few docs that should have been at least nominated were blown off, for some reason. Eugene Jarecki‘s The King, a transcendent doc about Elvis Presley and American culture, was ignored. Matt Tyrnauer‘s 100% brilliant Studio 54 was also given the go-by…why? Ditto a pair of HBO docs — Marina Zenovich‘s Robin Williams: Come Inside My Mind and Susan Lacy‘s Jane Fonda in Five Acts. Why didn’t they nominate Divide and Conquer, the phenomenal Roger Ailes doc?
Judd Apatow‘s The Zen Diaries of Garry Shandling, my absolute favorite doc of 2018 and arguably the best film Apatow had ever made, has been nominated for Best Limited Doc Series. What does that mean? It’s not a series but simply a long film (i.e., 270 minutes).
I was torn over which film to choose in the MOST COMPELLING LIVING SUBJECT OF A DOCUMENTARY category. The nominees are Scotty and the Secret History of Hollywood, RBG, Free Solo, Bad Reputation, Quincy, Three Identical Strangers, John McEnroe: In the Realm of Perfection and Filmworker. I kept flip-flopping between Scotty Bowers and Leon Vitali, and finally went with Scotty because Leon wouldn’t answer my numerous inquiries about the 4K 2001: A Space Odyssey doc.
I’ve arranged to see WHE’s forthcoming 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K UHD Bluray (streeting on 11.20) at a friend’s place (possibly as soon as this weekend), but some screen captures & comparisons posted by DVD Beaver‘s Gary W. Tooze are alarming. Because what I’m seeing are images that are significantly darker than the 2001 images I’ve been looking at for decades on theatre screens, VHS, laser discs, DVDs and the 2007 WHE Bluray. And the sides of the earlier Bluray (2007 and 2011) have been sliced off, for some reason, on the 4K.
I need to wait until I see the 4K myself, but the Tooze images are not pleasing, and the last time I checked he wasn’t blatantly misrepresenting Bluray images as a rule. So I’m wondering how or why Stanley Kubrick‘s 1968 classic is looking so damn murky and muddy.
All I know is that I’m alarmed all over again. Remember that despite what we’ve all read about this not being the non-restored Nolan “nostalgia” version with the piss-yellow and teal tints (and it’s really not, I’m told), this WHE 4K Bluray has had three fathers — Ned Price, Chris Nolan and Leon Vitali. And at least one of them is the bad guy here because 2001 has never been this dark, and it never should be. I mean, some of the 4K screen captures are ridiculous.
1. Tooze comparison #1 — the MGM logo. All my life the color of 2001‘s MGM logo has been a slightly muted publisher’s blue, like the top image from the 2007 Bluray. Now it’s a mixture of gravel gray and midnight blue — like the color of flagstone mixed with a dusky, early-evening sky. In short, it’s a lot darker and completely different than the logo image I’ve been looking at for half a century now. What is this?
2. Tooze comparison #2 — “Open the pod bay doors, Hal”. In the above 2007 Bluray image, Dave looks like he always has inside the pod while asking HAL “what the hell’s the problem,” etc. In the bottom 4K image, he looks like a demon ghost from The House on Haunted Hill. All you can really see are his piercing, key-lighted eyes. What the hell is this?
3. Tooze comparison #3 — Space-suit Dave in French chateau. The 2007 Bluray image of red-helmeted Dave is perfect, but you can barely make out his facial features in the 4K image. This isn’t just overly dark — it’s absurdly dark, as in the person who mastered this shot was (a) drunk, (b) stoned or (c) an anarchist who snuck into the WHE video mastering room with the intention of fucking things up.
4. Tooze comparison #4 — Discovery air-lock chamber. If you compare closely you’ll see that visual information on the right and left sides of the 2007 Bluray image (which was taken from a 35mm source) has been sliced off for the 4K.
The release date of WHE’s upcoming, highly controversial 4K Bluray of 2001: A Space Odyssey was recently bumped back to 11.20. A colleague reports, however, that Amazon and other retailers “are apparently getting limited stock in early and have already begun shipping, and so some people got it in the mail [yesterday].”
Here’s the big news: “My copy arrives on Monday, but I have readers who have it in hand already and are saying it’s not the Chris Nolan version” that played in theatres last summer — i.e., no piss-yellow or teal tinting.
Frame capture from 2007 Bluray of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Same image copied from WHE trailer for forthcoming 4K Bluray, which contains the same colors and specificity seen in the Chris Nolan version now in theatres.
This is excellent news if true. But if the disc has indeed been shorn of Nolan’s influence I’ve no choice but to presume one of two things.
One, that the WHE publicists and marketers who told the world last June that the 4K version had been “built on the work done for the new 70mm prints” (i.e., Nolan’s yellow and teal-tinted nostalgia version that premiered in Cannes) and then double-confirmed this by releasing a 4K disc trailer that contained the dreaded yellowish-teal tinting…I have to presume that these people didn’t understand what was happening and thereby passed along erroneous information.
Or two, that WHE honcho Ned Price considered widespread adverse reactions to Nolan’s urine-and-teal version and got cold feet and decided to produce a 4K Bluray that — shocker! — would present Stanley Kubrick‘s classic as it actually looked when it opened in 1968.
If the second scenario reflects what actually happened (i.e., that WHE marketers were in fact told by management that the 4K would in fact contain the values of the Nolan version, only to be made to look like absolute fools when a cleaner, truer version is released to the public), then Hollywood Elsewhere has to take at least some credit for changing Price’s mind.
Because I hammered and hammered on this story for months on end, bemoaning the urine-ization of a great film and wondering why WHE would willingly vandalize 2001 just to fortify a sweetheart relationship between Price and Nolan.
My source is going to get his 2001 4K disc on Monday, and has promised to get back to me. I’m naturally hoping to be able to report that the de-urineizing and untealing of 2011 has in fact happened, and that everyone can take to the streets and shout with glee that Nolan’s 4K Bluray version is indeed dead and that the whole urine-and-teal nightmare is over. Talk about a happy ending!
Two days ago I reported that Warner Home Entertainment’s forthcoming 4K Bluray of Stanley Kubrick‘s 2001: A Space Odyssey (streeting on 10.30) will apparently be adopting the yellowish-teal color scheme of Chris Nolan‘s 70mm un-restored “nostalgia” version of this classic 1968 film. The evidence is a WHE trailer for the 4K Bluray that was posted on 6.21.
I’ve been trying to find industry professionals who (a) share my disdain for the Nolan version and (b) might publicly challenge WHE and urge them to not go down this path. My first reach-out was to Leon Vitali, the dedicated keeper of the Kubrick flame who told me two months ago that there’s a distinct difference between the WHE 4K Bluray (i.e., the version that he had been color-timing, I mean) and the Nolan version of the film.
Vitali didn’t begin working for Kubrick until the late ’70s, but he’s presumably familiar with the original 2001 color scheme, having watched and examined many prints and many versions on various formats. Vitali may be making his thoughts known privately, but so far he hasn’t responded to me or to another party who shares my concern.
Today I reached out to Douglas Trumbull, who engineered many of the visual effects for 2001. He would surely have a good memory of how 2001 looked in ’68 and a clear grasp of how it should look today. On top of which Trumbull is a tough guy who’s always spoken his mind.
I’m also in the process of reaching out to Dan Richter, who played “Moonwatcher” in 2001. Dan doesn’t have the technical background, of course, but he was there at the creation and has presumably watched 2001 many times over the decades. My late father knew Dan from AA. I visited him 26 years ago at his home near Pasadena, and then wrote a piece about him for the L.A. Times “Calendar” section. Dan has written two books — “Moonwatcher’s Memoir” (’02) and “The Dream Is Over” (’12)
Somebody with the right kind of history and authority has to man up and say something.
On 6.21.18 Warner Home Entertainment posted a trailer for the forthcoming 4K Bluray of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which will street on 10.30. And it’s horrifying! Because the yellowish-teal color tint in this trailer is obviously the same color tint as the currently-playing Chris Nolan version of 2001. Watch it and tell me what you think.
It seems obvious (and please tell me how I could possibly be wrong about this) that the 6.21 4K trailer is proof that the yellow-teal Nolan version has been used as the basis for the forthcoming 2001 4K Bluray.
This means that WHE wasn’t kidding when an official press release (also issued on 6.21) stated that “for the first time since the original release [of 2001 in April 1968], new 70mm prints were struck from pristine printing elements made from the original camera negative” — i.e., the Nolan version. “A longtime admirer of the late American auteur, Christopher Nolan worked closely with the team at Warner Bros. Pictures throughout the mastering process.
“Building on the work done for the new 70mm prints, the 4K UHD with HDR presentation was mastered from the 65mm original camera negative,” the press release said. “The 4K UHD also includes both a remixed and restored 5.1 DTS-HD master audio track, as well as the original 1968 6-track theatrical audio mix.”
Frame capture from 2007 Bluray of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Same image copied from WHE trailer for forthcoming 4K Bluray, which contains the same colors and specificity seen in the Chris Nolan version now in theatres.
Posted on 6.21.18: “The key words, obviously, are ‘building on the work done for the new [Nolan-approved] 70mm prints.’ Question: If color-timer Leon Vitali told me that “the 4K has more clarity and sharpness and detail” than the 70mm Nolan version (and he did tell me this), why would the WHE people indicate that the Nolan nostalgia version and the 4K version are close relations if not more or less the same?
“One could surmise that Vitali’s 4K version was one thing back in April, but that Nolan has recently stuck his nose into the mastering of the 4K and that things have changed for the worse. I’m not saying he has stuck his nose into the process, but the WHE press release certainly suggests this.”
Unless the person who presided over the making of the 2001 4K trailer is deranged or incompetent, there’s very little ambiguity about this now. WHE’s trailer for the 2001 4K proves that the Nolan nostalgia version (i.e., a replica of the film Nolan saw on 70mm when he was 7 or 8 years old) and the 4K Bluray version are indeed one and the same. So Nolan did in fact stick his nose into the 4K Bluray mastering and changed the look of it.
Please consider two seemingly crucial factors about Nolan and his perspective on Stanley Kubrick‘s 1968 classic.
One, it has been claimed in some quarters that Nolan is red-green colorblind. (I’m looking for definitive sources on this but here, for now, is source A — here is source B.)
And two, Nolan has stated that he wanted to create an “unrestored” 70mm version to look like a 70mm version he saw with his father in Leicester Square when he was 7 or 8 years old. Except Nolan was born on 7.30.70, or more than two years after 2001 premiered in the big cities. The 2001 Nolan saw with his dad in Leicester Square presumably screened in ’77 or ’78, so he didn’t see the original roadshow version.
Please once again consider a comparison trailer (posted on 4.24.18 by Krishna Ramesh Kumar) that presented the differences in color in the 2007 Bluray of 2001 vs. the then-forthcoming Nolan version that premiered in Cannes. It showed that the yellowish-teal colors in the Nolan version were quite different than the 2007 Bluray colors.
I believe that WHE’s decision to kowtow to Nolan’s yellow-teal vision of 2001 is nothing short of vandalism. I think it’s a flat-out tragedy. I think Leon Vitali, who did the color timing on an earlier version of the 4K Bluray and who is supposed to be the keeper of the Kubrick flame, needs to stand up and say “no, this is wrong…the Chris Nolan nostalgia version is not how 2001 should look.” I think anyone who knows what 2001 should look like should speak up also. This is horrific.
Seven weeks ago I posted a recording of a chat I’d had with longtime Stanley Kubrick assistant Leon Vitali. The article (“Refreshments With Mr. Vitali“) was about Filmworker, a brilliant doc about Vitali’s life, but the first thing I asked Leon about were the differences between the forthcoming 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K Bluray and the “unrestored” Chris Nolan 70mm version that’s now playing in theatres after debuting at last month’s Cannes Film Festival.
Vitali: “I did the color timing on [the 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K Bluray], and 4K is so beautiful…the details, the shadows…looking at it on these very high resolution monitors. It looks great, everybody loves it, and I’m not blowing my own trumpet.” HE: “What would you say is the difference between the forthcoming unrestored Chris Nolan version and the spiffed-up 4K Bluray?”
Vitali: “The difference is that the 4K has more clarity and sharpness and detail.” HE: “So people seeing the Nolan version in Cannes will say, ‘This is wonderful…not as sharp or as clear as the 4K but it looks very good?’” Vitali said nothing, but nodded and chuckled.
Cover art for WHE’s 2001: A Space Odyssey 4K UHF Bluray, streeting on 10.30.
Based on this conversation I believed that the 70mm “unrestored” Nolan print (a nostalgia version based on a 70mm print that Nolan saw with his father in Leicester Square when he was 7 or 8 years old, and which I didn’t care for that much when I saw it in Cannes) and the 4K UHD Bluray would be two different entities, and that the disc would be a much sharper, richer, more elevating thing…better, truer colors…true-blue skies…Dave Bowman‘s face in super-crisp detail behind that red space-helmet visor in the French chateau finale (as opposed to the murky gray Bowman in the Nolan theatrical version). The “unrestored” 70mm was the Nolan nostalgia version but the 4K UHD would be miles above that, super-glorious and needle-sharp, an all-time keeper.
This morning, however, a press release from Warner Home Entertainment announced two things, one of them highly disturbing. It primarily stated that the 2001 4K UHD Bluray would “street” on 10.30.18, several months after the original announced date, along with a 1080p Bluray version plus a UHD streaming version. Fine. But it also seemed to suggest that the 4K disc would somehow reflect the visual values contained in the 70mm Chris Nolan version now playing in theatres. Whoa-whoa…WHAT?
From the Warner Home Entertainment release: “For the first time since the original release [of 2001 in April 1968], new 70mm prints were struck from pristine printing elements made from the original camera negative. A longtime admirer of the late American auteur, Christopher Nolan worked closely with the team at Warner Bros. Pictures throughout the mastering process.
“Building on the work done for the new 70mm prints, the 4K UHD with HDR presentation was mastered from the 65mm original camera negative. The 4K UHD also includes both a remixed and restored 5.1 DTS-HD master audio track, as well as the original 1968 6-track theatrical audio mix.”
The key words, obviously, are “building on the work done for the new [Nolan-approved] 70mm prints.” Question: If color-timer Leon Vitali told me that “the 4K has more clarity and sharpness and detail” than the 70mm Nolan version, why would the WHE people indicate that the Nolan nostalgia version and the 4K version are close relations if not more or less one and the same?
One could surmise that Vitali’s 4K version was one thing back in April, but that Nolan has recently stuck his nose into the mastering of the 4K and that things have changed for the worse. I’m not saying he has stuck his nose into the process, but the WHE press release certainly suggests this.
“It’s not a film that I like; it’s a film that I love. When I say I don’t like it, it’s that I don’t like the feel of the film. I don’t like its sterility. I like a film with a little more emotional balls, just as a movie, to get involved in. But as a work of art, I love it. It had an had an enormous, enormous impact on me, at a certain point.” — James Cameron speaking about 2001: A Space Odyssey in a 4.26 Toronto Star interview by Peter Howell.
What films do I greatly admire or highly respect, but which I don’t really like on a gut level? Because they lack emotional balls or have rubbed me the wrong way or whatever?
Michelangelo Antonioni‘s The Passenger. It’s a masterful film about being at the end of your rope, about ennui and futility and cul de sac alienation. I adore the final shot, of course, but it delivers a current of lethargy and bitterness that’s fairly unlikable. I tried to re-watch it on Bluray recently and gave up after a half-hour. It’s more than a little boring. But I know it’s a great or near-great film, and I’ll never call it dismissable or a shortfaller.
I recognize that Sergio Leone is a pantheon-level director who elevated ’60s spaghetti westerns by injecting a certain fuck-all nihilism and a degree of psychological complexity, and that his use of dynamic close-ups upped his rep as a kind of visual maestro. He’s a first-rate auteur, but I can’t think of a single one of his films that I actually like.
I worship Barry Lyndon, of course, but I really don’t like what I once called the “dead zone portion” — from the instant that Ryan O’Neal blows pipe smoke into Marisa Berenson‘s face until he shows up for that duel with Leon Vitali.
I’ll never trash Martin Scorsese‘s The King of Comedy — it’s a ballsy capturing of a certain American malaise, about third-raters and loneliness and a bottom-line feeling among millions that fame is the end-all and be-all, and that without it life would be a fairly miserable proposition. But apart from two or three scenes with Jerry Lewis (especially the “so was Hitler!” moment with Robert De Niro and Diahnne Abbott) I’ve never liked it. One serving after another of shamelessness, delusion, bile and idiocy. I remember my first viewing in ’82 and realizing about a half-hour in that it was going to play on this level all the way to the end. But I admire Scorsese for having made it, and I would never call it bad or even flawed. I just don’t care for the taste.
Oh, and 2001 is not my idea of sterile. Dry and dispassionate, yes, but the drollness and dark humor, not to mention the enraged, flipped-out behavior of a certain homicidal computer, are delicious.
- All Hail Tom White, Taciturn Hero of “Killers of the Flower Moon”
Roughly two months ago a very early draft of Eric Roth‘s screenplay for Killers of the Flower Moon (dated 2.20.17,...
More » - Dead-End Insanity of “Nomadland”
Frances McDormand‘s Fern was strong but mule-stubborn and at the end of the day self-destructive, and this stunted psychology led...
More » - Mia Farrow’s Best Performances?
Can’t decide which performance is better, although I’ve always leaned toward Tina Vitale, her cynical New Jersey moll behind the...
More »
- Hedren’s 94th
Two days ago (1.19) a Facebook tribute congratulated Tippi Hedren for having reached her 94th year (blow out the candles!)...
More » - Criminal Protagonists
A friend suggested a list of the Ten Best American Crime Flicks of the ‘70s. By which he meant films...
More » - “‘Moby-Dick’ on Horseback”
I’ve never been able to give myself over to Sam Peckinpah’s Major Dundee, a 1965 Civil War–era western, and I’ve...
More »