My heart won't let my feet do things they should do

Another comparison post! I really love these! I'm afraid that I'll eventually run out of songs but when that happens, I guess I'll just think of something else to write about! Plus, after I've written a post, I'll often discover another version of the song, so that's always an option too.

Anyway, the song for today's discussion is "I Won't Dance" by Jerome Kern. Now, the obvious choice is to, yet again, compare Roberta and Lovely to Look At, which are actually the same story, so that's almost cheating. But I do like comparing remakes. And this song happens to be pretty popular in other movies too. Take a look:

from Roberta (1935), we have Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers:



then there's Till the Clouds Roll By (1946) with Lucille Bremer and, of all people, Van Johnson:



then, of course, there's Lovely to Look At (1952), with Marge and Gower Champion. I'm sure I've said this before but I do think it's a pity that this movie was a remake simply because the Champions were fantastic dancers in their own right. Obviously no one can compare to Fred and Ginger but they had their own style and spark. I really do enjoy watching them a great deal.



Now, we come to the contemporary portion of our discussion. There are several movies post-1980's that use this song. Love's Labor's Lost, Warm Springs, (both which have Kenneth Branagh, oddly enough). I wanted to show you the former one here but it's not on YouTube, so you'll have to take my word for it that it's pretty cute. The second one is a TV movie that I'd never heard of but looks way too sad for me to actually watch so I won't bother putting it in here. Now, what I will post here is a movie that I don't really have any interest in watching all the way through, but I find this dance sequence quite intriguing. Take a look:



Despite the fact that Gene Kelly never (to my knowledge) sang this song, I think it's fascinating how much this scene pays homage to him. Running through the taxi cab and dancing with trashcan lids are both used in It's Always Fair Weather and then, of course, rolling over a couch is totally Singin' in the Rain-ish. He even jumps up on a lamppost! It makes me wonder how many other musicals they're referring to throughout the scene.

I'm like an ocean wave that's bumped on the shore

or

Remakes and the Contemporary Double Standard

I don't really know what I'd do without YouTube. I've discovered so many things and movies and movie stars through it. For example, I was watching movie clips and browsing through the suggestions list when I came upon this little gem:

I love Marge and Gower Champion. I actually discovered them originally through YouTube with this little number that I absolutely adore. Anyway, in watching the first clip, I remembered reading about Lovely to Look At (1952), which was a remake of the Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers film Roberta (1935), in a Fred and Ginger book where the author said that Marge and Gower Champion were "dizzy" as Fred and Ginger. I think that was the word she used: dizzy or dizzying or something. Anyhow, while watching this clip, I thought about that and found that I disagreed. I like them in those roles. They're different that Fred and Ginger and I don't think they're even trying to be Fred and Ginger. The whole plot is changed and characters are split and altered that they're really two different movies altogether.

Same song, Fred and Ginger style.

But. Were I watching a contemporary remake of Roberta and saw two contemporary actors dancing a dance that originated on screen with Fred and Ginger, I'd probably go out of my mind with frustration and judgment. Who do they think they are anyway? The upstarts! Trying to be Fred and Ginger?! Sickening!

What's funny to me is that there are tons of remakes that Hollywood churned out, some not even twenty years after the original (like in the case of these two movies). So why the Double Standard? I know I've discussed this before but it really fascinates me. I mean, some remakes I prefer to the originals (like in the case of Silk Stockings/Ninotchka). I don't think I have an answer for this question; it's just something I like to muse over. Your thoughts?

**I should clarify: I don't like Lovely to Look At better than Roberta. I'm just saying that some of the old remakes are so good that I like them just as much, if not better than the originals.

I'd love to make a tour of you...

Yay! I get to write to do my compare/contrast segment post (also known as my Old Hollywood/New Hollywood post, also known as my musical remakes post). I've been wanting to do another one for quite a while. It's so exciting!

There are several that I want to do but I think I'll go with comparing Ninotchka (1939) and Silk Stockings (1957). I watched the original a few months ago for the first time. Although, now that I think of it, "a few months ago" may very well have been January. Ah well. The truth is, I saw the remake first. And the first movie is usually the most dear, if only for sentimental reasons. Sometimes there are exceptions, but I've found that people are usually more attached to the first version of anything they've seen. That said, you can probably guess which of the two I prefer.

I think the original has many marks in its favor. A brilliant cast, for one. Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas are in fine form in this movie and both are delightful to see. The movie also has the benefit of being the original and, thus, the jokes are fresher and newer than they are in the remake.

Now, here are my problems with the movie. I don't like Ninotchka's transition. I don't think there is enough leading up to her change. She laughs and then, suddenly, she's a new woman. I suppose the laugh is a magical moment for her, but I have a hard time believing her new love and her new free spirit after just one luncheon. And, although this may sound odd, I do believe it in the musical, where the change arises from a dance. Again, not exactly a realistic approach, but a lot can come from music and a lot can be expressed in a dance. The "All of You" number shows her loosening and changing and, by the end of the number, we're as transported by the music as she is. That is the benefit of musicals - they get music and music has a magic all its own. What's more, the musical has Cole Porter music, which is in a class all its own. There are some fantastic numbers in this movie which is one of the major reasons I enjoy it.

As much as I like Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas, I have to confess that I love Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse more. Not saying they're better actors necessarily; I just happen to like them better. I love Cyd Charisse and I think she is adorable in her role. Ironically, neither Fred Astaire nor Melvyn Douglas are exactly the handsomest men around (in my opinion), but if I were to choose between them, I'd pick Fred Astaire. This probably comes as no suprise, really, but there it is.

However, I will say this about the original. I absolutely love the scene when Ninotchka first meets Leon. I enjoy the way she tolerates his flirtation.



Which do you prefer? The original or the musical remake? I'm posting a poll to the side so you can tell me there.

Is everybody fine? That's fine.

Today's segment is about Old Hollywood and New Hollywood. But I've actually decided to temporarily change it a wee bit, if you don't mind. I think it's fascinating that there seems to be a whole musical sub-genre: the musical remake. Musical remakes made a surge in the 50s and 60s and I find it very odd. Sometimes the musical remakes were better than the originals because music and dancing have a unique power and sometimes the original was, in fact, much better than the remake. I wanted to give the Old Hollywood/New Hollywood segment a break, but rather than do away with it entirely, I'm going to discuss musical remakes vs originals for a little while and see how that goes. Let me know what you think!

So, to start off, I want to discuss one of my favorite movies ever: The Philadelphia Story (1940) which starred Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, and James Stewart. The musical remake, High Society (1956) starred Bing Crosby, Grace Kelly, and Frank Sinatra.

Tracy Lord
Katharine Hepburn vs. Grace Kelly


I think Katharine Hepburn is great in the movie. She's strong, willful, and beautiful. However, I have an easier time believing a bunch of men would fight over marrying Grace Kelly. She's so gorgeous. Sorry, Katharine.



C.K. Dexter Haven
Cary Grant vs. Bing Crosby


Okay, I have a few thoughts on this one. First off, I don't particularly care for Bing Crosby (he's okay) so I would definitely go for Cary Grant. I think alcoholism was a very good flaw for Grant's Dexter to have. I mean, that really can be a major issue and Cary Grant, as gorgeous and amazing as he is, would be an unappealing husband if he were an alcoholic one. But jazz? Really? Jazz as a flaw? I can imagine Tracy being scornful over her husband's obsession but I think divorcing him over such a thing is a little crazy. Then again, I wouldn't want to marry Bing Crosby in the first place - jazz or no jazz. He doesn't have the suavity of Cary Grant (who does?). In competing for the most divorce-worthy flaw, I'd definitely go with alcoholism over jazz and in competing for the most fight-worthy husband, I'd definitely go with Cary Grant.


Macaulay Connor
James Stewart vs. Frank Sinatra


This one is a little tougher because I love Frank Sinatra and I love Jimmy Stewart. I have to say, though, that I really think James Stewart was incredible as Mike (as evidenced, I suppose, by his Oscar). I love the scene when he comes to call on Dexter. I think it's one of my favorite movie scenes ever.



The Music
Cole Porter was brilliant. One of my very favorite songwriters. There are some great songs in this one too: "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" "Well, Did You Evah?" Sometimes music can really do something that dialogue can't. For instance, you can see Dexter and Tracy's relationship when he's singing "True Love" to her. However, as much as I love Cole Porter and I adore his music, I think the dialogue and plot of this movie work so seamlessly, that the music isn't really necessary to drive the plot or the characters along.
But, I do love this song:



My decision? The Philadelphia Story. This probably doesn't come as much of a surprise as I did preface this post with, "this is one my favorite movies blahblahblah." But I do think High Society is a wonderful movie. When not comparing it to the original, it's fantastic. In comparison to the original, I'd take the original.

Thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree? I'm going to post a poll so that you can vote over which one you prefer and we can compare notes.

I really hope I didn't come off as mean or anything in this post. I'm always afraid that if I state a strong opinion I'll come off as pushy or nasty or something.

The die is cast. I'm a lilly.

Today, for my Old Hollywood/New Hollywood segment, I'm going to discuss a recent event: the Academy Awards. Now, I do have to preface this with the disclaimer that I did not watch the ceremony at all but, instead, watched the clips of old ceremonies that many of my fellow film-blogger friends posted. I also want to post a disclaimer that I'm not intending to argue with any comments posted about the awards; I just want to add a different way of looking at it, if I may. In posting videos of ceremonies past, many bloggers wrote that they believe we have lowered our standards over the years. As we all prefer old movies to new movies, I imagine we think this every day, and not just during the Oscars. And while, on the one hand, I will agree that, generally speaking, old movies seem more carefully crafted, more wittily scripted, and more artfully directed than many contemporary films, I'm not sure I agree that the Academy has lowered its standards. I think the issue is more of a shift in perspective.


I'll explain. Nowadays, when I look at the lists of nominees, I think, "Well, I know who I'd like to win." When I look at all of the names and titles, I've usually seen one, maybe two, possibly three of the films. Most of the time, the movies that I've seen don't even make it to the list, or if they have, they've snuck into the special effects category or sound category or something. You all know by now how much I prefer light and fluffy movies to dark and heavy ones. The movies I tend to watch are comedies, musicals, romances, and family films. Nowadays, these genres rarely seem to win best picture.


Let's look at the last five years of Best Pictures, shall we?

2009 - The Hurt Locker
2008 - Slumdog Millionaire
2007 - No Country For Old Men
2006 - The Departed
2005 - Crash

Now, again, I haven't seen any of these films. Maybe Slumdog Millionaire is a comedy? I'm not sure. But, let's face it. The romantic comedies, the family films, the musicals (with the exception of Chicago) don't really get much attention any more. There was actually a pretty funny skit performed at the Oscars a few years ago that discusses this. I don't really care for any of these comedians or their movies, but they do bring up an interesting point about what movies tend to get noticed.


The dark, gritty, heavy movies win most of the time. Even the most recent musical win, Chicago, was a gritty look at female killers in the 1920's. Now, going backwards and checking out some past Best Picture winners, let's see what turns up...

1934 - It Happened One Night
1938 - You Can't Take It With You
1951 - An American In Paris
1964 - My Fair Lady
1965 - Sound of Music

Of course, you do get the dramas, war movies, and heavy pictures that win too. But the light films seemed to be given the same amount of consideration. Was it because they were all just simply made better? Are the fluffy movies of today simply fluff? I remember reading a comment on how many nominees there were for Best Picture this year (10) and how it seemed as if the Academy was just nominating everyone. But then I looked at past years, like 1935, which had 12 nominees (two of which are personal favorites, Captain Blood and Top Hat). Were the movies of 1935 better quality? Some might say yes and I won't disagree with them because, frankly, I'm not a brilliant critic and I really watch movies because they're fun and historical, not to mention the fact that I am an old film blogger and I do prefer old films to new ones.

But I do think it's worth noting that a romantic comedy about a runaway heiress and a reporter who fall in love on the road, a touching but funny film about a family whose love and friendships make them richer than the town's richest man, a musical about a flower girl who learns to speak properly, a musical about a governess and the musical family she falls in love with, and a musical about a painter who falls in love with a young girl, could all be considered the Best Pictures of the year in their day. And nowadays, they would quite possibly be considered fluff. I'm just speculating, of course. But, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Do you think that film audiences and the Academy have lowered their standards? Do you think it's a shift in perspective? Is it both?


Again, I'd like to state that I am not trying to argue or strongly disagree with any of my friends who have written on this matter. This is just something I've thought about and I wanted to share my thoughts.

Those who sign without delay will get a free tattoo

Poll results! Out of 13 votes, 7 people said that they imagined dresses to be different colors while 6 imagined the dresses in shades of black, white, and gray. Thank you so much to all who voted!

Second order of business, the movie review chain. Thank you for all the lovely comments so far! For those of you who have added the movie to your to-watch list, I hope you enjoy it! I just want to note that nobody has made a bid for the next link in the chain. You don't have to be an expert on films to write a review, you just have to love movies! So, if there's a movie you love with a member from the cast or crew of Monkey Business or a similar theme, then feel free to snatch up the next link!

There are some fantastic giveaways right now! And they're all so exciting. There are two that I am particularly excited about because they're from two of my very favorite blogs:
Emma is letting her readers pick a song sketch for her to cover - which is so neat!
And Spiffy has a Forever 21 gift card - which would be so nice to have!
Hooray for giveaways!

Now, for my Old Hollywood/New Hollywood segment! One of my favorite Disney films (and I confess, I have several) is Peter Pan (1953). I was talking to my sister today and we were discussing how wonderful Peter Pan (2003) is when the conversation started to take a dangerous turn towards possible heated debate. You see, she doesn't like Wendy in the Disney version, whereas I think she's adorable. I love Peter Pan. I love the character, the book, the movies, the world, the storyline. A few years ago (I think when the Disney version was released on DVD), I went into a complete Peter Pan phase and I'd make a near-daily double-feature of the cartoon film and then the live-action. It's actually a fascinating way to watch the films and I do recommend it. All this to say, I love both movies - for different reasons. (Please forgive me if this post is a little disjointed. I discovered as I started writing that I'm tackling a pretty hefty subject. I could honestly write a paper on this topic!) Here we go!

Peter Pan (1953)
In the book, Peter likes Wendy but he also seems to like many different girls (Tink, the mermaids, Tiger Lily) and he seems rather oblivious to the fact that all of the girls like him and are jealous of each other for his sake. The Disney version emphasizes this aspect of Peter's character - which explains Wendy's character in this version a bit more as well, as she's always competing with different girls for Peter's attention. The fact that the movie is animated is a significant factor. When the characters fly, they really seem weightless and carefree. I love the way Peter sits on the back of the chair, or steps across thin air. He does more than just fly. It's wonderful! Hook's villainy has a different dimension in the film as well. Hook's unfulfilled ambition is to kill a young boy, which, I think, makes him a tricky character for a kid's story. He also nonchalantly kills his own men - making his villainy both humorous and chilling. The cartoon version makes Hook pretty silly and his cold-blooded killing is relatively light ("Shooting a man in the middle of his cadenza?"). Now, the fact that the movie was made in the fifties is pretty evident with such things as the unfortunately catchy tune, "What Makes The Red Man Red?" and Wendy being commanded to "get 'em firewood." Overall, the movie is light. There is very little sadness or darkness in the whole film - which is sometimes exactly what you need! For example, Peter's battle with Hook is humorous and the only moment of tension, when Peter promises not to fly, passes relatively quickly.


Peter Pan (2003)
This version taps into different aspects of Peter's personality. His character is more sympathetic as he finds himself torn between his longing for eternal youth and his love for Wendy. On the other hand, some of his more frustrating traits in the book are pulled into the movie - such as his dismissal of John and Michael. In the book, Peter's youth does entail some immaturity. He's forgetful of other people, slightly dictatorial, and makes light of the Darlings' fears. Wendy's character changes a good deal in this movie. A more modern heroine, she weilds a sword, challenges Peter, and even considers piracy. I think that this change in Wendy's character is due to her contemporaryism (is that a word?). After all, I imagine many girls have read the book and thought, "I could fight with the Lost Boys" or "I would rather be a pirate." Hook's character is a bit darker in this version than in the cartoon version. He kills his men a little more ruthlessly, we see his wrist sans hook, and he has an unusual fascination with Wendy. Now, I kind of like the changes in Hook's character. It's interesting to see Hook have a Happy Thought and the changes also allow us to see what an incredible actor Jason Isaacs is. This film is more of an emotional rollercoaster than the Disney version - which is sometimes a good thing. I love the depth brought into the movie with the darker elements. The cinematography and music are beautiful and add to the emotional effect. On the other hand, the more emotionally charged elements cause the movie to end on a relatively sad note. This is more in line with the book, but it makes for a bit of a downer on an otherwise feel-good film. (I'm including a picture of a battle between Peter and Hook. You can definitely see the difference, in the photos alone, in the emotional energy of the two movies and their overall feel)


Phew! What do you think? I'm going to post a poll about this: which version do you prefer? I'll add a C All of the above type answer as well.

Don't you love New York in the fall? It makes me want to buy school supplies.

Today for my post on Old Hollywood and New Hollywood I want to talk about influences. Namely, which is better: replicating an old classic or modernizing one? I'll add a poll about it.

There are arguments to be made for each. To make immediate examples: Usher performed a tribute to Gene Kelly's "Singin' in the Rain." Now, on the one hand, it's pretty incredible that Usher learned all of the choreography and did the exact same blocking and everything. However, one could argue (and I've heard one do it), what's the point of replicating something that's already amazing? On the other side, inspiration can be a tricky line to toe as in Katie Holmes's rendition of Judy Garland's "Get Happy." On the one hand, Katie Holmes modernizes an old number and lends it her own spice of individuality and personality; on the other, she changed a classic!

Now, to take this debate to films, I'm going to discuss one of my favorite contemporary films: You've Got Mail (1998) which is a film based on The Shop Around the Corner (1940). (Warning, I have a few spoilers in here.) The modern version covers the same story: two penpals who despise each other even though they have unknowingly fallen in love through correspondence. You've Got Mail changes the story, however, when the guy and girl are not coworkers but competitive bookstore owners. The shift from written mail to email is an easy transition with the growth of technology, but I find that the change in relationship makes a significant difference to the storyline. Their animosity is a good deal more understandable: he's putting her out of business - of course she hates him! And she says nasty things about him in public - of course he hates her! Joe Fox's later wooing of Kathleen Kelly is a little more gently done, as well, as he doesn't manipulate her as much as Kralik manipulates Klara. He suggests that her penpal is fat, married, and many other things but it's mostly done as a joking matter - she never feels crushed by the loss of an ideal. Now, don't get me wrong: I just rewatched The Shop Around the Corner and I love it! I think James Stewart is incredible in it and Margaret Sullavan is adorable. But I found myself feeling sorry for Kralik (and also getting incredibly mad at him at the end) and sort of disliking Klara, whose meanness isn't explained until the final scene of the film. In You've Got Mail, I like both of the characters and I understand each's frustration. Joe Fox does not elicit the same kind of sympathy that Kralik does, but then the characters are completely different. Kralik is a clerk who loses his job just as he is about to propose, and we see his vulnerability peek out as he reads his recommendation letter. Joe Fox, on the other hand, is a multimillionaire who loses very little throughout the film. The basic plot is the same and there are many entertainingly replicated bits of dialogue, but I find that the overall feeling of the film, the characters and their relationship are very different. It seems as if the writers of You've Got Mail loved The Shop Around the Corner and wanted to pay tribute, and improve upon it at the same time. Which brings up some controversy.

Now, looking at the other form of flattery, you have the musical rendition, In The Good Old Summertime (1949), which is essentially The Shop Around the Corner with musical numbers thrown in. What's the difference? Do we watch the musical because we like Judy Garland and Van Johnson more than James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan - or vice versa? Do we watch one or the other because we prefer musicals or straight comedies? Or do we watch both because we love the story and the dialogue and the characters so much that we can't get enough of them? This is something I've wondered with a lot of the musical remakes - High Society (1956), Easy to Wed (1946), Silk Stockings (1957), to name just a few. There are so many of them and I can't decide how I feel about them. In some cases, it's nice to see a change in casting and if the music is great then, hey! Why not? But sometimes I wonder why they couldn't leave well enough alone and let some of those good non-musical films stand on their own feet. It's a tough call to make.

What do you think about the issue? Should we replicate the things that we love or change them to fit the changing times? Or should we just leave movies that we love alone and leave it at that?

Youth is wasted on the wrong people

First off, I want to thank all of the wonderful people who voted on the poll. It was pretty much a landslide really. Fred of the '30s won hands-down. Thanks again for voting! New poll this weekend is Mr. Errol Flynn. So, go vote on which swashbuckling classic is your favorite!

Well, it's getting close to the holiday season now that we're getting Thanksgiving under our belt. I know Christmas music and holiday films may still be a little premature to some people, but today is for discussing Old Hollywood's influence on New Hollywood and this comparison is related to Christmas (however, if I post it on Christmas there may be some controversy). You ready?


Okay. This may seem like an odd comparison, but here goes. A few weekends ago, I watched 17 Again (2009) and I have to confess that I found some definite echoes of It's A Wonderful Life (1946). Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that 17 Again is like the great Capra classic, I'm simply stating that there are significant echoes. Hear me out:

In 17 Again Mike O'Donnell (Zac Efron) gives up his dream to go to college in order to marry his impregnated girlfriend. Now, an adult (Matthew Perry), he regrets his decision, wishing he could go back to high school and start all over again. He meets a mysteriously omniscient janitor (Brian Doyle-Murray) and, on a drive home, sees the janitor standing on a bridge. He gets out of the car and rushes to save the guy's life, then gets sort of sucked into a vortex and suddenly is back in his 17-year-old body again. Now, he has the chance to regain apprecation for his family and understand what is really important in life.


Most people have seen It's A Wonderful Life, but for the sake of argument, I'll outline the similarities. George Bailey gives up his life-long dreams for the sake of others, then grows up to regret what he has lost. He never does get to travel (a point that I always get frustrated with, every time I see the movie) and he is always stuck in Mandrake Falls with the Building & Loan company that he never really wanted. He gets his second chance by jumping off a bridge to save a suicidal man, who turns out to be his guardian angel (Henry Travers). George Bailey's transformation is drastically different than Mike O'Donnell's; however, he learns to appreciate his family and friends and understands that he is, in fact, much wealthier than he believed.


Do you believe me now? Hopefully. I really liked 17 Again, I thought it was a very cute and very funny movie. Again, I'm running on the assumption that most people have seen It's A Wonderful Life, but if you haven't, I highly recommend it. The last ten minutes make me cry with happiness every time.

If you have any good ideas for comparison/contrast, please let me know!

Also, let me know what you think of this one. Do you agree? Disagree? Are you impressed by my wonderful insight? Or appalled by my audacity to compare a Zac Efron flick to a Capra classic?

You're the top!

Happy Birthday Kevin Kline!

Now, I had a post all written up, and I even published it... but then I realized that it was Kevin Kline's birthday and I couldn't pass up the opportunity. I've been wanting to write a compare/contrast post about Night and Day (1946) and De-Lovely (2004). The trouble is, I've only seen De-Lovely once. It was about four years ago and I saw it with my step-mom who often interpreted movies differently than I did. Therefore, I regret to say that this will not be the best post I have ever done because I have not done adequate amounts of research on it. But I will what I can. Hopefully I'll be able to rewatch De-Lovely soon and, if necessary, I'll make edits to this post accordingly. If I do, I will let you know.


De-Lovely tells the story of Cole Porter (played by Kevin Kline) and his wife, Linda (played by Ashley Judd). A contemporary, biographry, it does not hold back on the details of Porter's homosexuality. Rather, the movie emphasizes those details. It is all told in retrospect, as an old Porter looks back on his life and reflects. Again, it has been a while since I've seen the film, but I remember the wild parties depicted, the tragic scenes, and the overall somber attitude. This could be a case of misremembering and, if it is, please let me know! In any case, it works well as a comparison to:


Night and Day, which stars Cary Grant as Cole Porter and Alexis Smith as Linda Lee Porter, with Michael Curtiz directing. Interestingly enough, Cole Porter was actually alive when they made this fictionalized biography of him. I think it is an important detail due to the way they portray the songwriter's life. For example, they completely omit his homosexuality and suggest that the Porter's marriage came to rocky terms due to his excessive work ethic. As the movie was made in the '40s, this omission makes sense, particularly with the subject still being alive - audiences would not have been as accepting of a favorite romantic composer being gay. I've heard that Cary Grant was cast mostly as a wish fulfillment for Porter. Apparently they asked who he'd like to have play him, he said, "Cary Grant," and so Cary Grant was cast. I've also heard that Grant was very frustrated by the portrayal of Cole Porter as he was friends with the composer and knew that the story being told was mostly false. I hate to fill this post with so many "I've heard"s and "I believe"s, but I promise to rewatch these films and do better research in the future!! I watched this movie after I'd seen Night and Day and was completely surprised by the lighthearted way it was handled. To be honest, I was rather relieved. The '40s went through a small phase of making fictional biographies of composers, including, Words and Music (1948) (Richard Rogers and Lorenz Hart) and Rhapsody in Blue (1945) (George Gershwin). I'd already seen both of those films before Night and Day and I really prefer the latter with its lighthearted style. They all are described as fictional biographies and, in my opinion, if you're going to make up facts about a real person, you might as well make them cheery facts! However, I will admit that De-Lovely does more justice to the truth in Cole Porter's story.


So there you have it. Two films about the same person with completely different storylines and styles. If you are a fan of Cole Porter, I encourage you to check these two films out and make your own judgment on which is the superior film and which is the truer depiction of Cole Porter.

And, as a treat, here are two clips. One, with Cary Grant singing (a rare treat!) and the second, with Kevin Kline and John Barrowman performing one of my favorite Cole Porter songs.

Also, I highly recommend you check out Kevin Kline in Pirates of Penzance (1983) which can be found here.

Alright m'hearties, follow me!

Warning: I went a little crazy on the photos this time.

Okay, time for some comparisons and contrasts! Every year, pretty much without fail, I forget about National Talk Like A Pirate Day, which is tomorrow, September 19, until September 20. In an effort to avoid forgetting this strange holiday, I wanted to talk about pirates. Now, I live in St. Augustine currently. It's a beautiful town, full of rich history and lovely architecture, and many touristy trappings - not the least of which is piratey stuff. We have pirate tours, pirate tour guides, pirate shops, pirate bed and breakfasts and it gets a little ridiculous. My brother once mentioned that pirates got the best rewritten history: they were not the awesome, swashbuckling Robin Hoods we consider them today. They were, in fact, quite appalling and not at all glamorous. However, it's funner to give them that glamorous remake and, as a culture, we've been doing this for quite a while. So, this week, I'm going to return to my compare/contrast segment with:

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) and Captain Blood (1935).

Most people are familiar with the Disney pirates movie starring Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, and Kiera Knightley. It spawned 2 sequels (I've heard talk of a 3rd), made Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow an iconic character, won Depp an Oscar nod for the role, and enabled to Disney to make pirates a proper opposite for their current Princess themes. I am a huge fan of the first film in the Pirates series, although I'm not terribly crazy about the sequels. It's a fresh, funny adventure-romance on the high seas and, as a long-time fan of Captain Blood, I find something familiar in it.

Now, a brief background on Captain Blood. It starred Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in their first roles together, with director Michael Curtiz at the helm. This was Flynn's breakthrough film and it launched him into stardom. His pairing with Olivia de Havilland was repeated several times in his career as well and their chemistry is undeniable. The film is a funny, chilling adventure-romance on the high seas... oh! Sound familiar? Okay, now for the similarities:
- Chivalric pirates. As I mentioned before, I'm pretty certain pirates were not quite the noble rascals we like to believe, but it's fun to pretend. Peter Blood (Flynn) is not a pirate by choice but by necessity, an outlaw in England and a slave in the New World. When a slave, he falls in love with the beautiful Arabella Bishop (de Havilland) and though he believes he can never earn her love, he strives to earn her approval. Thus, when confined to a life of piracy, he composes a strict code for his men, forbidding the molestation of women, unfair distribution of treasure, and drunkenness when on duty (among many other things). It is made clear in the film that these rules are very unusual for pirate crews. Captain Levasseur (Basil Rathbone), Peter's piratic foil, criticizes Peter's "severe articles." However, we like Peter's unusual methods, and as a conscience-driven pirate he gains our admiration. Likewise in Pirates of the Caribbean, Jack Sparrow and Will Turner (Bloom) surprise their audience and gain their respect as they rescue the fair maid, Elizabeth Swann (Knightley) and diligently obey the Pirates' Code.

- Location, location. Okay, so I realize that both of these movies take place in the Caribbean and, as such, the odds are greater that they'll take place at the same location, but every time I show someone Captain Blood for the first time, they get all excited about the mention of Port Royal and Tortuga because - hey! That's from Pirates of the Caribbean. Now, Port Royal is a town in Jamaica and Tortuga can be found on Haiti, so it makes perfect sense that they be used in films set in the Caribbean. However, I often wonder at the coincidence because there are many locations in the Caribbean in which to set a piratic film, which is why I make note of the fact that the makers of Pirates happened to use two major places in Captain Blood.

- Governors' female relations. Elizabeth Swann is the daughter of the Governor in Port Royal and Arabella Bishop is (later in the film) the niece of the Governor in Port Royal. I would say the Governor of Jamaica except I'm not sure how many governors were employed on each island - one? two? Anyway, the relationships of these women to the governors in Jamaica play crucial points in the two films. In Pirates, Elizabeth's fear that the pirates will take her hostage because she is the Governor's daughter causes her to lie and say that her name is Elizabeth Turner - which then causes the major conflict of the movie. In Captain Blood, Levasseur's band of pirates actually do take Arabella as hostage because she is the niece of the Governor of Jamaica and his impure intentions for her cause Peter Blood to fight for her, and enable him to take her aboard his ship. I think there is significance in the choices for the romantic interests. In a way, the daughters and nieces of the governors on the islands were a sort of royalty. They had slaves, fine clothes, and were probably enjoyed a respectable footing in English society. We all love a good Robin Hood story and the idea of a good-hearted rogue falling in love with a noble lady warms our hearts. And, thus, to see Peter, a doctor-turned-slave-turned-pirate, end up with the lofty Arabella and Will, a lowly blacksmith-turned-pirate, end up with the lofty Elizabeth, tickles our romantic sensibilities perfectly.

I've only just realized how very long this post has become. I didn't realize how much I had to say on the subject! But the similarities are so striking, I find it thoroughly fascinating and I wonder if the makers of Pirates didn't use Captain Blood as a sort of muse or something. Anyway, if you haven't seen the movies, I highly recommend them. They are both classics in their own way. So, if you don't think you can hold up a pirate accent and jargon all day (or even if you can), check out these movies, settle down with your mates and drink up, me hearties, yo ho!

Up with chocolate!

So... long time no see! I wish I could blame my lack of updating on a lack of time, but that would only be partially true. To make up for my terribly bad manners, I will write a more in-depth blog entry for you. I do hope it isn't too long... Okay, so that title was a little misleading, wasn't it? Those of you who recognize it, however, will likely guess what movie I'll be discussing next. The truth is, I'll actually be discussing 3 movies! Pillow Talk (1959), Sex and the Single Girl (1964), and Down with Love (2003).

Down with Love is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's quirky, it's romantic, it's hilarious, and it pays homage to the sex comedies of the 1960s. It is a common misconception that Down with Love is based on Pillow Talk. I am a firm believer that it is not; rather, it was highly influenced by it. The two movies do have striking similarities, but their differences are so important that one cannot say they are even "practically" the same movie (which I have heard

said).

This summer, I was able to watch a good handful of new movies (thanks to Netflix!), and one of them was Sex and the Single Girl. The movie reaffirmed my opinions in the above matter because Sex and the Single Girl, like Pajama Game, has major similarities with Down with Love - but different similarities.

All three of these movies are 1960s sex comedies in style (despite the fact that one was made in the late 50s and one was made in 2003). Thus, all of them share similar story-lines and similar attitudes towards romance. They're all about the "battle of the sexes" and so they all deal with an intelligent, independent, single woman and a suave, smooth, womanizer. The plots, as I said earlier, are all pretty similar: basically, the woman, in her independent and free-spirited way, angers the womanizer to the point where he feels he must get even with her. And, as each womanizer feels that each woman needs to understand a thing or two about sex and love, they all decide to pretend to be the sort of man that could seduce the women. And there you have it, a basic wrap-up of each plot.

Now for the differences and similarities (these may contain spoilers):

Pajama Game, like Down with Love, features the female protagonist (Jan Morrow and Barbara Novak, respectively) despise the man (Brad Allen and Catcher Block) for his womanizing ways. In Pajama Game, Jan Morrow is infuriated that Brad Allen allows his social life monopolize her phone line and in Down with Love, Barbara Novak argues that Catcher Block is "the worst kind of man... men who change women as often as they change their shirts." To get back, both men pretend to be pure, innocent Southerners, the kind who like home-cooked meals, pipes, and quiet home life. Another similarity to point out is the use of split screens in both. Pajama Game includes a sexy scene where both characters are taking a bath in their seperate homes but the split screen creates the comical illusion that they are sharing a bath instead. This idea is taken to an exaggerated measure in Down with Love, where the couple (unintentionally) does several sexual favors for each other in an innocent phone conversation. Now, add in a luckless, hapless, neruotic, and rich best friend to the main male character (not to mention Tony Randall), and that about sums up the similarities between these two films. If I have left anything out, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to edit this post accordingly.

Sex and the Single Girl features different similarities with Down with Love. Far from criticizing the man's social schedule, this female protagonist, Helen Gurley Brown, encourages it and encourages the singe girl to partake in the fun as well. Her encouragement is detailed in her controversial book, as is Barbara Novak's who, like Helen Gurley Brown, encourages women to stimulate their sex life, modeling it after the womanizer's; at the same time, however, she judges men for using women in such ways. In both of these two films, Catcher Block and Bob Weston are journalists, working on exposés to unveil the true romantic inclinations of the women.

Well, now that you've had a (somewhat) brief description of the differences and the similarities between these three zany sex comedies, you know what to expect (oh! did I mention the car chase in Sex and the Single Girl?).

So, rent these movies, grab a cocktail and, of course, some chocolate, and enjoy!