I wouldn't kick Gene Kelly out of bed for eating crackers

I can't remember the last film that kept me grinning from beginning to end. But Singin' In The Rain did just that. I found myself giggling and laughing out loud, as well.

Cosmo was wonderful. His physical humor was wonderful. The choreography was perfect, as was his dancing. Cosmo is obviously the sidekick of the main character, but he still demanded attention during scenes such as when he did three back flips off the walls. The chemistry between the two of them, as pointed out by Paul Beverly in class, was phenomenal. In my opinion, they could have been the only two characters in the movie and it still would have been just as enjoyable. We didn't even really need the love story.

I think it was very appropriate that we watched this film the day after the Oscars. The whole beginning scene, where everyone was fawning over the celebrities, screaming and fainting, was very much like how people treat celebrities at awards shows. Now, I didn't watch the Oscars, but I can imagine how the reporters and talk show hosts were treating the celebrities as they passed by. I really liked that a lot of this film is a satire of Hollywood and actors.

I guess I didn't really think about what we talked about in class; the reality vs. illusion of Hollywood and the characters. I mean, it was obvious that the movie was a movie about making movies... The people were acting as actors, we saw the process of making a silent movie as well as the process of making talkies. We saw the microphones and the cameras and the staff. We saw the difficulties that existed in the transition from silent films to talkies.

However, with more thought, I do see how the opening scene lays out the contradiction between illusion and reality. Don told the adoring audience about his exciting and glamor-filled past, while we, the real audience, were shown the true imagines of Don's past. I understood the point of that scene and it made me think of what today's celebrities are really like when they are not on stage for us. Do Brad and Angelina really love having so many children? Do they actually engage with them and care for them? Or do they just toss them to their nannies and go off and make their movies, while only spending time with their kids when they are doing a magazine spread?

The scene where Don confesses his love to Kathy, when he needs the right lighting and the fan blowing and her dress is ridiculously flowy, is an obvious satire about actors not knowing how to be real people. I was watching the movie The Aviator the other day and Howard Hughes and Katherine Hepburn were arguing. He asked her if she even knows when she is acting or not anymore. I think that's appropriate, since Don couldn't even stand there normally with Kathy to tell her how he felt. He had to turn it into a performance.

One of my favorite scenes in the film is when Don and Lina are acting for the silent film, The Duelling Cavalier, set in France. They are supposed to be in love and they have to look like they are acting lovey dovey, but really, they are saying awful things to each other. I thought that was hilarious.

Gene Kelly was terrific (and a bit of a stud). He was very enjoyable as Don Lockwood. His character was lovable, his dancing flawless and his singing was great. All around, Gene Kelly was a perfect fit for this role. Besides John Wayne in Stagecoach, Gene Kelly in Singin' In The Rain is my favorite lead male that we have seen so far. And Debbie Reynolds was a great female counterpart. Her character was charming and intelligent and talented. I really enjoyed their banter in the beginning of the film. I guess I really like sarcastic, fun relationships between men and women.

In Feuer's piece, he says that "Lina is associated with the dishonesty of silent cinema, which fools audiences into thinking that actors are what they appear to be; Kathy is associated with the authenticity of musical performance in which singing and speaking always come 'from the heart'". So is that what the movie makers were trying to accomplish? Are they saying that old, silent movies are dishonest, while the new exciting musicals are honest? Or are they saying that Hollywood in itself is dishonest? Because, afterall, Debbie Reynolds did not do all of her singing and dancing for the film...

In class, it was stated that a lot of the jokes and musical numbers and physical comedy were out of place. I totally disagree. I thought the songs were great and as appropriate as any musical number would be in a movie... I also adored Cosmo and Don's dancing in scenes such as "Make 'Em Laugh" and "Moses Supposess". They didn't seem unneeded. For this type of film, I thought they were appropriate and entertaining.

How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?

Okay so Double Indemnity totally reminded me of those movies that are coming out lately, based on gothic novels. Movies such as Sin City or The Spirit. They have that scratchy voiced narration and their plot surrounds a morally questionable act or series of acts. They are all in black and white and there is a lot of bad weather, and they are all based in cities.

When I heard the term "film noir" in class today, I didn't know what it meant. But once the film started, I immediately knew the genre and Dick Tracey came to mind.

There is the beautiful, seemingly respectable young woman, Phyllis, who turns out to want her husband dead. At first, I sympathized with Phyllis. Her husband was quite the dud and he obviously was not very nice to her. I also noticed the chemistry and attraction between Phyllis and Walter immediately. Okay, Walter and Phyllis had some of the lamest conversations ever, but I still wanted them to get together right away.

Once Lola tells the story about her mother dying pretty mysteriously, I started to lose some sympathy for Phyllis. Did she kill the first Mrs. Dietrichson so that she could marry Mr. Dietrichson for his money? And then when he lost his money in the oil business and removed her as an heir to his estate, did she then want him dead? Now she seems pretty darn conniving. And did she seduce poor, horny Walter into killing her husband?

And, as a side note, when I was typing the name DIEtRICHson, I wondered if the name has some significance in the film? Just a thought.

Anyway, the femme fatale role has always intrigued me. These women are always just like Eve, talking the innocent, well-meaning men into evil acts. The feminist in me tends to get irritated and indignant when I see these women. Why does it have to be the woman who is the seductress, the mastermind of the crime? Granted, there are some evil women out there, who use their feminine wiles to get what they want. But they also seem to be pretty abundant in this genre of films. Does this reflect how society viewed women at that time?

Even many of the titles make it obvious that the plots revolve around a woman. In Studlar's writing, movies such as Murder, My Sweet, Laura, Phantom Lady and Woman in the Window are listed.

(Another side-comment about Studlar's piece: he totally gets the last names of Phyllis and Walter wrong.)

One thing I liked about the film was the obvious sexual tension. In many earlier films, the relationships between men and women were proper and mostly devoid of physical romance. In Double Indemnity, Walter kept calling Phyllis "baby" (almost too much) and they certainly made out a lot. I guess it was just refreshing to see some relatively realistic interaction between a man and a woman.

White Zoooombie

So White Zombie was not what I was expecting. The zombies weren't oozing from any of their orifices, they weren't gnawing anyone's arm off! How boring.

I've been interested in the religion of voodoo since I took Musics of the World. We listened to music associated with voodoo and we also learned that voodoo is not what Hollywood has made it out to be. It is not all about voodoo dolls and evildoing. Much of it is about goodness and well being. But that wouldn't make an exciting Hollywood movie. So of course, in White Zombie, we see the result of voodoo, zombies.

The natives are obviously not represented positively in this film. We really only see them in the beginning funeral ceremony and as zombies themselves. When this film was made, the United States was occupying Haiti. However, that is not presented in the film. The American leads are obviously the heroes of the film. The foreign Legendre is the evil zombie leader. So creepy.

I totally saw the Dracula side of Bela Lugosi in this film. His crazy eyes and wacko eyebrows, as well as the sinister facial hair.

I was reminded of Stagecoach at one point. Madeline's body was discovered to be missing from her grave and Dr. Bruner suggested that she may have been kidnapped. And then Madeline's new husband, Neil, replied, "Surely, you don't mean she's alive? In the hands of natives? God, no! She's better dead than that!" This is just like when Mr. Hatfield would rather murder Mrs. Mallory, rather than let her be kidnapped by the Native Americans. This shows the stereotype held for natives, considering them all to be savage and apt to rape the white women, and rob them of their virtue.

It is ironic, though, as we discussed in class, that it is the upper class, white American man who captures Madeline and makes her his zombie love slave.

I didn't agree with Tony Williams' assertion that Neil had necrophiliac impulses. Just because Neil said "I kissed Madeline when she lay in the coffin and her lips were cold", does not mean he wanted her sexually when she was dead. Neil was obviously overcome with grief. He kissed the lips of his new bride, they were cold, he thought her to be dead without a doubt. A suggestion that she might still be alive confused him. I really don't think he was a necrophiliac.

Mr. Beaumont, on the other hand, was a weirdo. At first, I thought he was kind of sweet. He was feeling down because of unrequited love. He tried to show Madeline how much he loved her and all the happiness he could offer to her. However, I'm pretty sure they had just met on the boat days before... so I don't think it was really LOVE he was feeling for her.

The fact that the freak was willing to turn the "love of his life" into a zombie just so he could have her was dumb and gross. And obviously using her as a lifeless vessel was not satisfying to him after all. It was kind of cool that Beaumont missed Madeline's real personality and wanted to give her soul back to her. However, it was still totally screwed up that he turned her into a zombie in the first place.

Overall, the movie was pretty bizarre. Zombies were just freely walking around Haiti and everyone seemed to know about it. And everything got crazy really quickly. Everyone was turning into a zombie, Neil was a blithering idiot. And then suddenly, Madeline is human again, Neil is coherent, Legendre is dead, as is Beaumont. And then everything is happy and well!

Bizarre and abrupt, but nonetheless, happy, was the ending.

Who the hell is Carlo?

My Man Godfrey... there are so many things to say about that film. I simply loved it. I've always been a little stubborn about old black and white movies. My parents watch them all the time and have tried to get me to join them. However, I was convinced that they were too old fashioned for me and not my style. I just would not enjoy them!

My bad.

The effects of the Great Depression are obvious in this film. The men living in the dump had obviously been down on their luck. I didn't really understand what was going on at first when the rich women approached them men in the dump. I immediately liked Godfrey's character, though. He was so sarcastic towards Cornelia and Irene and they didn't seem to catch on.

I liked that the rich are being picked on throughout the movie. The comparison to an asylum was amusing. Everyone was running around like maniacs, pushing their way past people, being rude and uncontrollable. It made me nervous just watching them.

I found it sad that a "forgotten man" was such a common thing to be included in a scavenger hunt. It was pretty messed up that the rich snobs would include it.

As discussed in class, "screwball comedies" include typically strong, but crazy women. They center around a romance story and rich people are laughed at. The mother, Angelica, was ridiculously annoying in the beginning of the movie. She became less annoying and more amusing as the movie went on, though. Cornelia was a total biotch throughout. The sibling rivalry was obvious and destructive. I understood it, though, as the middle child with two sisters. Irene was nicer but really odd. She got increasingly crazier as the movie progressed. The only "normal" woman in the film was the maid. She was very witty and smart.

My main question was: who the hell is Carlo?! I was trying to figure that out when he started jumping around like a maniacal gorilla. I didn't even know what to think! Then he was seen eating, singing, and ultimately, tossed out of a window. It was so so very odd. Only during the class discussion did I finally understand that not only was Carlo Mrs. Bullock's "protoge", but he was her live-in gigalo. How very improper!

I thought it was funny that almost every woman in the movie was desperately in love with Godfrey. Irene's miserable dramatic reaction to rejection was quite amusing. Not eating, constantly crying, making comments about how nothing matters... she reminded me of myself.

I found Gallagher's analysis on the class system interesting. Until I read his piece, I didn't notice that the middle class was virtually nonexistent throughout the film. We see the ultra rich and the ultra poor... with the servants Molly and Godfrey in between. And I do agree with those in class who said that the middle class is probably missing because the middle class were the ones watching the film- and they needed an escape from their own lives at that time.