I started out with sports movies but that’s a lot of territory. Football, basketball, boxing, horse racing and all kinds of other stuff. Baseball by itself is plenty for a list.
Every kid of my generation loved baseball as much for playing as for watching the pros. We played some version of baseball on parish fields, sandlots, school yard asphalt or around the cars on our city streets. Baseball, stickball, punchball, slapball or softball. Wherever we could find the space and whoever was around we could always get together some kind of game.
And of course we were rabid fans. Being from New York City we had to choose between the Yankees and the Mets. But even though I was a die-hard Yankees fan I went to the 7th game of the 1969 World Series and dutifully ripped up a square of turf when the Mets won it all for the first time and planted it in my backyard. A year later that chunk of grass died. It figured.
“The Sandlot” is a cheat because it’s more of a comedy about kids but it has a few things that broaden the appeal.
“Field of Dreams” and “A League of Their Own” both have cultural aspects that annoy me but both contain enough entertainment to allow me to include them on the list with only a grimace or two. “The Natural” is overly sentimental but I consider it the best attempt to capture the mythological aspect of baseball in the American psyche; at least as it was before America was lobotomized in our era. “61*” is a more realistic look at the business of baseball legends. “Eight Men Out” is another movie to look at the reality behind the legends. It’s the story of the Black Sox Scandal. Excellently made.
I’m sure opinions will differ. Have at it.
The Pride of the Yankees (1942)
It Happens Every Spring (1949) 1
Angels in the Outfield (1951) 1
The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings (1976)
I’m sure everyone will say I left out one of their favorites. War movies and movies about the military seem to be very personal in their impact. And that’s easily remedied when you list your forgotten favorite in the comments!
I left out ancient wars so Spartacus and Henry V were too far back I thought. “Master and Commander” is close to the line but is such a good movie I couldn’t leave it out. Although it would still show up in an action category and a list of movies about the sea. Of course, I was restricted to movies I’ve seen and I can’t claim to have seen most war movies.
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944) 3
The Story of GI Joe (1945) 3
They Were Expendable (1945) 3
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Fixed Bayonets! (1951) 3
Captain Horatio Hornblower (1951) 3
From Here to Eternity (1953)
Pork Chop Hill (1956) 1
The Gallant Hours (1960) 3
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) 3
The Longest Day (1962) 3
The Great Escape (1963)
Zulu (1964)
Battle of the Bulge (1965) 3
In Harm’s Way (1965) 3
The Dirty Dozen (1967)
Battle of Britain (1969) 3
Patton (1970)
A Bridge Too Far (1977) 3
Big Red One (1980) 3
Das Boot (1981)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
Gettysburg (1993) 3
Saving Private Ryan (1998) 2
Band of Brothers (2001) 2 *
Black Hawk Down (2001)
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Okay, the category is one of those inconsistent constructs. Why not call them classic monster movies? How do you define classic? What is the allowable chronological range? Are silent movies included? Well, I’m fudging all of these and just selecting what I want to, no matter that logical consistency probably goes out the window.
Let’s look at my list. Basically, it’s the Universal monster movies in their heyday along with “Nosferatu,” “Island of Lost Souls” and “House on Haunted Hill” thrown in for dubious reasons (basically because I like them). I’ve left out a dozen Universal films that could just as easily have been included and I’ve included “The Invisible Man” and “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” which really belong in a list of early science fiction stories. But that probably applies to the Frankenstein movies too. So, the whole thing is incredibly subjective and personal in nature.
So, I won’t belabor the point any longer and will instead chalk this up to a labor of love. As a little kid I thoroughly enjoyed these movies and hundreds more that provided a similar thrill. List your favorites in the comments. If you want my detailed reviews of most of these movies do a search on the site by title.
The Fountainhead is a novel by Ayn Rand about an architect named Howard Roark who embodies Rand’s ideal of the individualist. It was made into a movie with Rand providing the screen play.
(Spoiler Alert – Skip down to last paragraph to avoid spoilers and read recommendation)
Gary Cooper is Howard Roark, a young man who wants to build buildings where the form corresponds to the function of the building and the materials it is made from. But the architectural profession demands that only the established patterns, like classical columns and facades be used. Unwilling to compromise on these points he is scorned by his profession and denied any commissions by the corporate establishment and is forced to get work wherever he can find; a gas station here, a factory there. But slowly he gains a reputation as an innovator who can build modern buildings that are structurally sound and gracefully beautiful.
During these years he meets friends and enemies that help or hinder his career and he meets his soul mate; Dominique Francon (played by Patricia Neal) who is the daughter of a prominent architect and is the first to recognize Roark’s great talent and integrity. But because she sees that the world will try to destroy him, she leaves him to spare herself the agony of watching it happen. He meets Gail Wynand (played by Raymond Massey) the owner of the New York Banner, a tabloid newspaper that profits from yellow journalism. He is also Dominique Francon’s new husband. Wynand recognizes Roark’s talent and hires him to build a mansion for him in the country where he will live with his wife. Neither Dominique nor Roark keep their former relationship from Wynand and in fact Roark and Wynand become close friends.
Working for Wynand at the Banner is Ellsworth M. Toohey, the newspaper’s architectural critic (if you can imagine such a thing). He is also Ayn Rand’s mouthpiece for the collectivist ideology. He believes that individualists like Roark are criminals for defying the will of the majority and should be treated as such.
Eventually we reach a crisis when Roark agrees to design a low-income housing project on the condition that his design would be adhered to completely. When the powers that be betray him and change his designs, he dynamites the buildings before they are completed and is put on trial. Wynand attempts to defend Roark in the Banner but Toohey organizes a boycott of the paper and Wynand is defeated and must recant his defense of Roark.
In the climax of the picture Roark gives a summation speech to the jury defending every man’s right to the fruits of his labor, in his case the design of his buildings and the agreement that they would not be altered. And of course, he is found not guilty. Wynand sells the Banner and uses the funds to commission Roark to build the tallest building in the world and then shoots himself. The movie ends with Dominique Roark taking a construction elevator to the top of the million story Wynand Building tower with Howard Roark standing there with his hands on his hips while the wind whips his shirt.
O good grief. Where to start? Ayn Rand was a novelist and social critic who proposed a theory of human values that she called “objectivism.” It seems to be a justification for a libertarian view of human interaction. It espouses individualism and the right of everyone to live life according to the individual’s free will without constraint as long as no one else’s existence is constrained by this behavior. For Rand, the antithesis of objectivism and the epitome of evil is communism. Since Rand had grown up under the Soviet regime, she knew something about how communism worked. She was also a novelist and her books reflected her philosophy. And Howard Roark was one of the exemplars of her philosophy. And the book is a very interesting read in some respects. But subtlety was not one of her attributes. There are no shades of gray. Howard Roark and Dominque Francon are demigods of individualist virtue and Ellsworth M. Toohey is a communist slug dripping slime wherever he goes. But even this would be a starting point for a movie. What is missing though is anything like actual human behavior. The characters are there more or less only to mouth talking points and diatribes for their particular points of view. Even the romantic entanglements are presented as examples of how these mythical objectivist supermen and women would behave. At no point can you find yourself suspending disbelief and becoming immersed in the characters. It’s more like one of those public service film documentaries from the fifties where you are told about how the air raid shelter will allow us to survive World War III and get on with our lives in the glorious future that awaits us. I enjoy watching the movie as a lark. But except as a philosophical treatise on Ayn Rand and objectivism I don’t think it can be recommended for entertainment value.
Currently the cable channels available to me contain two kinds of movies I might watch. There are Halloween movies (horror and slasher movies) and classics (mostly movies from the 1930’s and 1940’s with a smattering of later movies that supposedly have “timeless” qualities).
So tonight, my choice was between John Carpenter’s “The Thing” (1982) and the 1946 film noir “Gilda.” In deference to Camera Girl’s presence (she wanted something quiet in the background) I put on the older movie.
(Spoiler Alert – Skip down to last paragraph to avoid spoilers and read recommendation)
The plot of Gilda is slightly goofy. The motives of the three main characters are hard to reconcile with their actions. Glenn Ford plays Johnny Farrell, an American down on his luck in Buenos Aires for some unknown reason. We meet him he has just won a sum of money in a craps game from some American soldiers. As he walks away, he is accosted by a robber armed with a pistol. He is rescued by Ballin Mundson who happens by with a walking stick that has a retractable 18-inch blade hidden inside. We find out that Ballin owns an illegal gambling casino. And after a very short time Johnny inexplicably becomes Ballen’s indispensable operations manager.
When Ballen returns from a business trip he introduces Johnny to his new American bride Gilda played by the absurdly beautiful Rita Hayworth. But of course, Ballen doesn’t know that Johnny and Gilda were married and divorced sometime before the start of the movie timeline. And they vehemently hate each other. But neither of them reveals to Ballen this common history. And because Gilda resents Ballen’s trust in and friendship with Johnny she attempts to torture Johnny by forcing him to cover up for a string of flirtations that she initiates with every man who catches her eye at the casino. The logic of this isn’t really well explained. But Johnny apparently feels its his responsibility to keep Gilda from upsetting Ballen.
During this part of the movie, we learn that Ballen has other business interests in addition to the casino. Somehow through patents he has a monopoly on the world-wide production of tungsten (of all things). And eventually we find out that his position was provided to him by Nazis(!). Eventually the Nazis return and want their monopoly back. A crisis arises when Ballen refuses their demands and he murders one of the Nazis at the casino. Ballen must flee the country to escape the law. He tells Johnny to find Gilda and bring her back to his house from which he will be fleeing with Johnny and Gilda that night.
When Johnny extracts Gilda from a romantic rendezvous that she was on and brings her to Ballen’s house they have a bitter fight which of course ends with them in a passionate kiss. And, of course Ballen enters the room at that exact moment. He rushes out and drives away. Johnny jumps in his own car and follows him to the airport where Ballen runs to a waiting plane and flies out over the ocean. The police have followed both of them and they tell Johnny that they have been waiting for the Nazis because they want to bust up the tungsten cartel. They watch Ballen’s plane heading off into the night when it suddenly explodes. We are then shown Ballen parachuting into the ocean where he is picked up by a boat. He tells his rescuers that he will be hiding out for a while but he will return to deal with a situation, which we assume is Johnny and Gilda.
Thinking Ballen dead, his will is read and Gilda is his sole heir but Johnny is the sole executor of his estate. So, Johnny marries Gilda to get control of the casino and the tungsten empire. Afterward he treats her like dirt as revenge for what Johnny thinks of as her disloyalty with other men. Gilda rebels by acting even more disloyal. Finally, there is a rapprochement when Johnny finds out that Gilda has only been pretending to have affairs with various men. Now the police tell Johnny that he must give up the casino and tungsten business because Argentina is about to seize them. Johnny and Gilda decide to return home to America. But at that juncture Ballen returns and announces that he is going to kill the couple. And because he has to kill them both he won’t use his sword cane but his gun instead. But just as he bears down on them, the friendly philosopher/bathroom attendant (I didn’t mention him before?) Uncle Pio stabs Ballen in the back with his own sword cane. The understanding police inspector declines to press charges against the amiable killer saying, “you can’t murder someone who has already been declared dead plus haven’t you ever heard of justifiable homicide?” And Johnny and Gilda live happily ever after. Well, anyway we hope so.
Good lord. This movie is a hopeless mess. As I said earlier the plot and the motivations of the main characters are hopelessly absurd. Gilda’s marriage to Ballen can’t be reconciled with her actions. And Gilda’s and Johnny’s feelings for each other are hopelessly confusing and annoying to the audience. The whole plot of the Nazi tungsten business makes no sense and seems ridiculous on its face. Sure, uranium would have made sense for crypto-Nazis to be dabbling in but tungsten? What were they planning to do, deprive the world of light bulbs? And then there is the laid-back police inspector who wouldn’t let a little thing like homicide stand in the way of a happy ending. Add to this Gilda’s almost incessant habit of saying Johnny’s name in every sentence she utters at him and you have a movie in which it is impossible to suspend disbelief. The only possible motive for this movie was to showcase Rita Hayworth’s face and figure. And without a doubt that is a worthwhile endeavor. Hayworth is featured in several song and dance routines where she parades and shakes her very charming assets for the audience. She was a very lovely woman in the prime of her life. Now is this a movie worth recommending? I would say only if all that I’ve said is taken into account. You have to be going in just to watch Rita Hayworth dance to “Put the Blame on Mame.” If not then don’t.
I’ve looked over my output for the last year. It’s all the same thing. It’s all been said. I can’t say it again.
At this point talking about what needs to be done has very little value. So, I’ll talk about things that I find interesting. Maybe it’ll be technology or science or photography or science fiction or maybe it’ll be some current event that I think is noteworthy. I’ll try to keep the outrage over Biden’s atrocities to a minimum since we all know they’re coming and talking about them doesn’t really accomplish anything.
If I see something happening that is progress, that’ll be discussed. For instance, the red state governors sending illegal aliens to sanctuary cities worked! It struck a nerve, it discombobulated them. It was successful and that is newsworthy and worth discussion. And if someone has some original and thought-provoking theory on how the world will be changing in the future and I think it’s worth discussing I might link to it and put in my two cents.
As I get a chance to make some progress on my sf book, I’ll probably put a few chunks of it up for comment. And I’ll start doing more reviews of movies and books. But banging on the “something must be done” drum has gotten too dull. I’m preaching to the choir and the choir will start heading for the doors soon.
Things will be changing but hopefully folks will still find stuff here that they find interesting and worthwhile. So, my daily announcement that the sky is falling has been cancelled and instead I’ll leave something entertaining.
That post I wrote a few days ago about Disney’s woke movies losing money at the box office and some of the comments I got have inspired me to spend some time looking back at some of the good movies that have been made over the years. What I’ll start out doing is put together a list of categories like comedies, dramas, and genre films like film noir, sci-fi, fantasy, westerns, war movies, etc. Then I’ll start getting people to give me their favorites. We might even divide it by decades or at least eras (30s/40s/50s, 60s/70s, 80s/90s, 00s/10s/20s)
At some point we can get some polls up to find out what the popular favorites are on the site. Now this is tricky. With the exception of some of the regulars, most people are pretty uninterested in commenting. What I was thinking is if you know any movie fans encourage them to show up and contribute movie titles and when we get to the voting to pick their favorites.
Feel free to leave comments on how to enhance the process to get a good list together. I know there are some specialists in such sub-genres as “schlock science fiction” and of course these will not be neglected.
In the next installment Ill start the ball rolling with my own best of lists for the various categories.
I have an inordinate fondness for W.C. Fields’ comedy. His henpecked, misanthropic “heroes” are among my favorite comedic characters. Here’s a part of a scene from his movie “It’s a Gift.” I’ve always thought that the insurance salesman sounds an awful lot like the talk show host Johnny Carson.