"Casablanca" On The Big Screen

Last  night we had the treat of seeing the 1942 classic motion picture, "Casablanca" in  movie theater on a Big Screen.  Thanks to Turner Classic Movies and Fathom Events for continuing this excellent service to movie lovers everywhere. In his opening remarks, TCM host Ben Mankiewicz said that even if you are seeing "Casablanca' for the fiftieth time, chances are, you have never seen it in a movie theater in company with other movie goers, and that will surely add to the enjoyment of the movie.  He was right!

I'm not going to go on and on about he movie - most of you  all know what it is about - other than to say what I have often said:  If there is such a thing as perfect movie, "Casablanca" is probably it.

Thanks to the Google Machine, though, I was able to go back in time and read the review of the movie written by critic Bosley Crowther of the New York Times from November 27, 1942.  I part, this is what Crowther had to say:

Against the electric background of a sleek cafe in a North African port, through which swirls a backwash of connivers, crooks and fleeing European refugees, the Warner Brothers are telling a rich, suave, exciting and moving tale in their new film, "Casablanca,".....

Yes, indeed, the Warners here have a picture which makes the spine tingle and the heart take a leap...... they have turned the incisive trick of draping a tender love story within the folds of a tight topical theme.

Like the film itself, Crowther's review has pretty much held up seventy-five years later.

Here is a link to the Times review in its entirety.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C06E1DF1039E33BBC4F51DFB7678389659EDE

As we have learned from these TCM events, there is nothing like seeing a movie on a Big Screen  in an honest-to-God movie theater.

Here's looking at you, kid.

Movie Review: "Muder On The Orient Express" (no spoilers)

One of the big movies of the season opening today is a new version of Agatha Christie's classic mystery thriller, "Murder On The Orient Express".  This version was was directed by and stars Kenneth Branagh as detective Hercule Poirot.

Before getting into the subject of remakes, let me concentrate on this movie.  As indicated in the title, there will be no spoilers.

The story, and there may be some of you out there who are not familiar is this:  Poirot finds himself boarding, at the last minute, the Istanbul-to-Calais Orient Express for a three day train ride across Europe.  Because of the last minute nature of his boarding, he is squeezed in among an assortment of passengers all brought together, seemingly at random, for this particular train ride.  During the second night of the trip two things occur.  An avalanche takes place and stalls the train in the somewhere middle of the Balkans, and one of the passengers is brutally murdered.  A railroad official implores Poirot to investigate and solve this mystery before the tracks are cleared so that the police officials can be presented both a victim and a perpetrator.  The killer had to be someone on the Calais Coach, but who  among them could have wanted this guy, Mr. Ratchett, dead? 

Such is the tale of one of Christie's most renowned novels, and Branagh tells the story in a stylish and very entertaining manner.  I'm not going to say any more about the mystery and its solution.  See the movie yourself and enjoy it.

Like the Sidney Lumet version of the story from 1974, this one has the requisite all-star cast that includes in addition to Branagh, Michelle Pfeiffer, Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Josh Gad, Leslie Odom, Jr., Willem Dafoe and others.  Going in, I wasn't sure that I was going to like Branagh as Poirot, but he was quite good as it turned out.  Also good in their roles were Depp (is he ever not good?) and Pfeiffer.  The movie is also beautifully filmed and  gorgeous to look at.  A very entertaining hour and fifty-four minutes, and it gets a solid Three Stars from The Grandstander.

Now, when I checked in on Facebook that I was seeing this movie today, I got a number of comments along the lines of "I saw the Albert Finney version in 1974, so I'm not going to bother with this one" or "Why bother remaking this one" or "Why should I see this one when I saw the other one. Isn't it the same story?"

The subject of remakes is one that I have written about before 

http://grandstander.blogspot.com/search?q=Magnificent+Seven

and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.  In the case of MOTOE, I had read that the Agatha Christie estate was in full support of the making of this movie because it might expose new generations of readers to Christie's works, generations of moviegoers and readers who would have no inclination to look up and watch a forty year old movie. Fair enough.

I grant you that a lot of remakes have been ill-advised and just plain bad (see what I had to say about that in the post linked above), but some of them can be quite good and can stand on their on merits alongside and even improve upon the originals.  As far as "Murder On The Orient Express" is concerned, I can say that I liked both this one and Lumet's 1974 version equally.  It's a good story, and the studios and the film makers did not skimp in making sure that they gave the public a quality production.  And isn't conversations of who was better, Albert Finney or Kenneth Branagh, Lauren Bacall or Michelle Pfeiffer, Richard Widmark or Johnny Depp, Ingrid Bergman or Penelope Cruz (for the record, I'll vote for Branagh, Depp and Bergman and call it a draw between Bacall and Pfeiffer) all part of the fun, kind of like arguing about Willie, Mickey, and The Duke?

Movie goers can decide how they want to spend their money, of course, but I hope that you not rule this version of "Murder On The Orient Express" out simply because you saw the same story done forty-three years ago.  That was a good movie, but so is this one. 

Oh, true Christie-philes will have noted that the door was left open just a crack at the end of this one for additional Branagh-as-Poirot films.  Not sure if that is what Branagh wants, but the opportunity is certainly there.

Again, Three Stars from The Grandstander.

"Casablanca" Is Coming To The Big Screen

A couple of years ago, my pal David Cicotello surprised me with a copy of this book....

As the title self-explains, it contains the complete script of the classic 1942 film, "Casablanca" as well as several essays with fascinating behind the scenes stuff from co-screenwriter Howard Koch and others.  Many of the essays in the book expound upon the popularity of "Casablanca", and how it continues to find new life in younger generations who are always flocking to see it when it was shown in revival houses.  What was interesting about that was that this book was published in 1973.  

Think about that for a minute.  In 1973, the video cassette recorder did not exist, which means that there were no video cassettes that could be rented or purchased, and things such as dedicated classic movie cable channels, DVD's and DVD players, Blue-Ray discs, and video streaming were probably not even figments of the imaginations of anyone.  In 1973, the only way that you could see "Casablanca" was either waiting for some college campus revival theater to run it, or catch it in a chopped up version on the late, late show on your local television station.  Yet, despite all of that, "Casablanca" had already established itself as a classic, must-see film.  In 2017, anyone who remotely cares no doubt owns a copy of "Casablanca" on DVD, and Turner Classic Movies runs it at least a half dozen time a year, so we can watch it pretty much any time we want to do so.

However, how many of us have actually seen "Casablanca" in an actual movie theater on a big screen?  Not me, and probably not may of us under the age of seventy or so, but in the coming week, we have the opportunity to change that.  To mark the 75th anniversary of its release, the TCM/Fathom Events Big Screen Classics series will be showing "Casablanca" in theaters nationwide on Sunday, November 12 and Wednesday, November 15.  In Pittsburgh, this will be shown at the Cinemark Theaters.  

Mrs. Grandstander and I plan on being there at one of these showings, most likely Sunday evening.  Yes, we will know every line of dialog before it is spoken on screen, and we'll probably be reciting some of those classic lines right along with Rick and Ilsa, but how can we pass up this chance to see this in all of its wide screen black-and-white glory?

I hope that we'll see a lot of friends there as well, and if not, well....

To Absent Friends - Roy Halladay

Toronto Blue Jays 1998-2009

Philadelphia Phillies 2010-2013

203-105, 3.38

Eight time All-Star

Cy Young Award, 2003, 2010

Now you will not swell the rout

Of lads that wore their honours out,

Runners whom renown outran

And the name died before the man.

    - from "To An Athlete Dying Young" by A.E. Housman

RIP Roy Halladay

Bob Dylan In Concert

Back in 2015, Marilyn and I began, although we didn't realize it at the time, what we have come to call the "Geezer Rock Concert Tour".  It began when we went to see Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band, and it has gone on to include Tom Jones, Brian Wilson, and Huey Lewis and the News.  Last night, the Tour expanded to include perhaps the greatest American musical icon of the last fifty years, Bob Dylan.

Dylan has been touring and performing for going on sixty years, and in fact, he calls his performances the "Never Ending World Tour", but we had never seen him live, and when this concert at Heinz Hall was announced, I figured that I was going to jump on the chance to see him perform, because, hey, this is BOB DYLAN we are talking about here, and how many more chances am I going to get to see him?

From reading about Dylan's concerts in recent years, you have to know what you are going to get going in....you are not going to get a "greatest hits" show, he'll sing what he wants to sing, and he will "rework" some of those classics to the point where they will sound different, and in some cases, a lot different from the recorded versions with which you are familiar.  You also know that you will get no snappy banter or interaction with the audience.  Finally, we've all heard Bob Dylan in recent years, and the voice is now raspy from 76 years worth of cigarettes and God knows what else.

So, how was it at Heinz Hall last night?

Dylan performed with a five piece band and no back up singers.  He did all the singing himself.  In some instances, I was surprised at how well his voice did sound, but in many cases, the often imitated Dylan voice was rough and raspy to the point that it was hard to understand.  He performed a number of his Dylan standards, but all of them were reworked in a way that they were almost unrecognizable, and he was almost halfway through the song before you realized what song it was (examples: Tangled Up In Blue, Desolation Row).  Others, while they may not have been just like the originals, were more recognizable (It Ain't Me, Babe, Highway 61 Revisited, and Blown' In The Wind).  

He also performed a five Sinatra-type, Great American Songbook numbers, which he has been recording in recent years.  Kudos to him for trying something different, and while Bob Dylan is many things, one thing he is not is a Frank Sinatra/Tony Bennett style crooner.

Over his lifetime as a performer, it has been the WORDS of Bob Dylan that have won him acclaim, and, incidentally, a Nobel Prize for Literature, but I also love the MUSIC of Bob Dylan.  The beats and rhythms of his songs are wonderful, and to that end, his five piece band last night was terrific.  Even when it was hard to understand Dylan's voice, the music that the band (with Dylan on piano; he never touched a guitar or a harmonica last night) was producing was wonderful.

I am not sure what I expected last night.  For sure, Dylan is not a young man, and he was never one to give bombastic Springsteen-style concerts.  In some respects, the performance last night was somewhat workmanlike - sing a song, change the lighting, sing another song, punch the clock and get out of there.  As Scott Mervis said in his Post-Gazette review this morning "Dylan does what Dylan does - he has earned that right - and God knows he loves to mess with us."

It certainly was not the greatest concert I ever attended, but it wasn't like watching Willie Mays With The Mets either.  From a personal point of view, my biggest thrill of the night was hearing Bob Dylan sing It Ain't Me, Babe and Blowin' In The Wind.  No matter how it sounded, watching an honest-to-God icon performing two of his most iconic songs was worth the price of admission.

Much of our Geezer Rock Tour has been in the company of friends Dan and Susan Bonk, and that was the case last night as well.  Back in the days of our youth, none of us probably ever imagined that a Bob Dylan concert would be preceded by dinner at a linen tablecloth downtown restaurant, and take place in a posh place like Heinz Hall.  

The times, they have indeed a-changed.

Lousy Teams in the News

What I am about to write about falls in to the category of Old News, but I just can't resist.  At the NFL trade deadline last week, the League's two lousiest teams were very much in the news.

First off, the San Francisco 49'ers, now 0-9, made a trade with the New England Patriots and obtained quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo.  Interesting deal, and God knows, the Niners needed a QB, but then coach Kyle Shanahan announced that Garoppolo would not be starting right away, and, in fact, it was highly possible that Garoppolo might not even play until NEXT season.

I will remind you that the 49'ers were 0-8 at the time of Shanahan's pronouncement, and are now 0-9.  Can anyone explain the HC's logic in this matter?  Can anyone explain why anyone would actually buy a ticket to see the 49'ers play?

Then there are the Cleveland Browns.  The quarterback travails of the Browns since they came back into the NFL in 1999 are well documented.  In an effort to improve themselves, the Browns had apparently made trade with the Bengals to obtain Cincy's back-up QB, A.J. McCarron.  Word is that the folks in the Browns front office and football staff were celebrating this deal and congratulating themselves over be able to pull this off, except for one minor detail.  They neglected to file the necessary paperwork with the League office prior to the deadline, so....No Deal.

As Bryce Harper might put it, that is a clown franchise, bro.

Of course, one might wonder just how good McCarron would have been anyway since the Bengals were willing to send him to a division opponent, but of course, these are the Bengals we are talking about.  In the end, you might say that the big winner in all of this was McCarron, since he doesn't have to go to Cleveland and play for the Browns, but, on the other hand, he is still stuck with the Bengals.

Let me end with this little proposition wager.  If I set the Over/Under for combined wins for the Browns and 49'ers at 1.5 for the rest of the season, how would you bet?  I would bet the Over because it is hard to go 0-16.  However, if I set it at 2.5, I would definitely go Under.

Old Movie Time: "Notorious" (1946)

Alfred Hitchcock's "Notorious" opens in a Miami courtroom in 1946 and the conviction of an American man for being a Nazi spy.  Shortly thereafter, the spy's daughter, promiscuous and drunken Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman) is recruited by American agent (FBI? CIA?; Hitchcock never makes that detail clear) T.J. Devlin (Cary Grant) to spy on some of her father's old associates who are still up to no good down in Brazil.  Despite her bitterness about her father's conviction, it seems that Alicia is a patriotic American, plus, she's fallen in love with Devlin, and she'll do anything for him.  Devlin also loves Alicia, but duty calls, and he must ask her to do something very distasteful for the good of the country.  However, if only she would say no, or if only Devlin would tell her not to do it.....but then if either of those things happened, we'd have no movie.

Anyway,  Bergman and Grant get down to Rio, where they manage to bump into her father's acquaintance Alex Sebastian (Claude Rains), who at one time was in love with Alicia.  Before you know it, not only is Alicia insinuated inside off Sebastian's house - remember, she was promiscuous, and Hitchcock and screenwriter Ben Hecht lets you know it despite Hollywood production code mores that forbid such things being spelled out on screen - and before you know it, she's married to the guy!

Despite all this melodrama, this movie is one of Hitchcock's more suspenseful efforts despite there being absolutely no on screen violence or mayhem.   Hitchcock manages to wring tension and suspense out of the following elements:

• A key in Bergman's hands
• A wine bottle tippling on a shelf
• The steadily reducing inventory of champagne bottles behind a bar at a party
• Two coffee cups on an end table
• An ending sequence involving Bergman, Grant, and Rains walking down a set of stairs

I'd like to tell you more about that final bullet point, but if I did, it would really spoil the movie for you.

This movie contains one of Hitchcock's most famous shots.  The scene opens with a wide view from the top of stairway upon an elegant house party.  The camera then slowly zooms in one take to a close-up of Bergman's hand behind her back as she clutches the aforementioned key.  This two sentence summary of the scene and the shot does not do it justice.  You really need to see it.

It is a movie that is also somewhat famous for a three minute scene of Grant and Bergman kissing.  The production code at the time did not allow for screen kisses in excess of three seconds.  In this scene, the two of them stare into each others eyes, coyly converse, move from a balcony, to a kitchen, to the doorway, and, while Grant makes a phone call, to the doorway of the apartment, all the time in each others' arms while taking those sub-three second kisses.  Kind of a foreshadowing of what Hitch did with Grant and Eva Marie Saint on a train car in "North By Northwest" a dozen of so years later.

It is a movie that also makes "good guy" Grant kind of a rotter, while "bad guy" Rains, who really does love Alicia, becomes  an almost sympathetic figure.  And the final line of line of dialog and scene of the movie is especially chilling.

Movies don't get much better than when Alfred Hitchcock was at his best, and he was definitely at his best with "Notorious". 

Four stars all the way on this one.