How Does "Shadow Of A Doubt" REALLY End??????????????

                          All this writing I have been doing, of late, which circles around this particular film, caused me to go back and examine it.  And I made an interesting discovery.

                           I know, from this shot, the onrushing train, and the funeral scene at the closing, that Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotton) dies.  That he was killed by the onrushing other train is unquestionable.

                           But who put him in that position?  That is the question.

                           You have to be visually alert, once "The Two Charlies" (which I think would have been a great title for the film!!!!!!!!!) get outdoors on the caboose terrace of the train.  There is a fight, and it looks like Teresa Wright wins,  and Joseph Cotton falls onto the tracks.

                             This, I believe is what Hitchcock wants us to see.  But, is it, really??????????

                              From my perspective, and having seen this film many times, there are three possibilities.

                               1. The niece, in survival mode, does push the uncle off the train.

                               2. The uncle, in the fight, involuntarily loses his balance, and falls in the train's path.

                               3. The uncle, who is a self-hating character, has a crisis of conscience at the end, and, as a final act of doing something right, sacrifices himself, to save his niece.

                               But which is the right answer?  The scene is played out so carefully that each of these scenarios fit.  Hitchcock sends out clues supporting each throughout the film.  But he wants the viewer to decide for himself.

                               One thing is disturbing.  Since Cotton and Wright are "the two Charlies," what does her pushing him say about her capacity to be like him?  Sure, she is fighting for her life, and it is self-defense, but if she really did push him off the train, this Charlie is not to be messed with, either!!!!!!!

                                Hitchcock provides enough for every viewer to have their cake and eat it too.  But I still cannot decide.

                                  What do you think, girls????????  You tell me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can They Pull This Off????????????

                           "They" happen to be two noted actresses--Laura Linney and Cynthia Nixon.  I love their work, and, starting March 29, they will be performing in one of my favorite plays--Lillian Hellman's "The Little Foxes."  For me, it is up there with "King Lear."  Both show the havoc some family members can wreak on one another?  And don't we all know about that, darlings????????

                             The show is to open at the Samuel J. Friedman Theatre, on West 47th Street, now under the auspices of the Manhattan Theater Club.  But, to us devotees, it will forevermore be the Biltmore, where, in the late Sixties, a little something called "HAIR," had a respectable run.

                              The last version of this play I saw was several years back, at the New York Theater Workshop.  It was restructured, modernized, and had the gifted Elizabeth Marvel give a chilling performance as Regina.  I loved it--and I did not expect to.

                              This 'Foxes' will be a traditional rendering, with the gimmick of the lead actresses alternating roles each night.  On one evening, Laura will play Regina, while Cynthia plays Aunt Birdie.  The next night, it will be reversed.

                                There is, apparently, some kind of online schedule, which outlines who is playing what role at each performance, for those, such as I, who care.  Of course, this creates a dilemma for us lovers of this play.  To get its full value, it has to be seen twice.  And, at today's prices, that is not easy.

                                 I think Laura will pull off both superbly.  Cynthia, however...well!!!!!!!!!!  She didn't do so well as Miss Jean Brodie, did she?  So, my guess is she will be able to pull off Regina, but not Aunt Birdie.  In her work that I have seen, Cynthia has never shown the kind of vulnerability needed to play the tragic Birdie.  Where is Mary-Louise Parker, when she is needed????????????

                                  Meaning you should see the play for Laura doing both roles, and just watch Cynthia do Regina!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                  Of course it is just possible Cynthia may surprise us!  But I don't think so!

                                  To paraphrase the quote at the start of its film version--"Take....'The Little Foxes'.........for our theatrical tolerance is limited!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

                                

This Bitch Is Dead!!!!!!!!!!!! But Not Before Wreaking Irrevocable Damage!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                               The jury is still out on why this all happened.  What is that known is that Carlos Garcia, 36, and winner of this week's Raving Queen Bitch Of The Week Award, drove with his 7-year-old daughter, Yaxtel, to a parking lot at the Capitola Mall in Capitola, California, a part of Santa Cruz county.  He called his wife, said he was going to commit suicide--and did it.

                                                But not before he shot the child!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                Kidnapping has been ruled out.  But I wonder about some kind of custody dispute.

                                                Apparently, Yaxtel had a sibling.  So, why was that child spared, and not she?  Possible sexual abuse?

                                                When something unspeakable like this happens, people want answers, to fathom the unfathomable.  At this point only the dead man knows...and maybe not, considering what he did, who knew how well his mind was working?

                                                  But this bitch is despicable.  It is one thing if he wanted to end his life; that is his personal decision, and, as horrible as it is for survivors, it was his decision.  But to make that same decision for the child, who, I am sure, did not have this on her agenda, is inexcusable.

                                                   You want to take your own life, Carlos???????  Go ahead!  But not anyone else's!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                     Suicide is said to be the supreme act of selfishness.  This particular incident is also a supreme act of revenge.

                                                      Congratulations, Carlos, on being named Bitch Of the Week!!!!!!!!!!

                                                 

"Manhattan"................38 Years Later!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                 "I'm honest, whaddaya want?  I say what's
                                                   on my mind, and, if you can't take it, well
                                                   then, fuck off!!!!!!!!!!"--Diane Keaton, as
                                                   Mary Wilkie in "Manhattan" (1979).


                                Were this post about me, it would be entitled "Manhattan....34 Years Later."  Come December 1 of this year, that is how long I will have been living in New York, on the other side of the Hudson River, from Jersey, where I was born and raised.  But it is not. It is about the experience of recently seeing Woody Allen's classic 1979 film at the Film Forum.

                                  Like everyone, back in 1979, I saw "Manhattan" when it came out.  My first viewing of it was at the Menlo Park Cinema, in Jersey, then the most sophisticated film venue in the area, with a really large screen.

                                    Of course, back then, I saw the film as my life, in the direction I so wanted it to go.  And, as some know on here, that was a tough year for me, my mother having died in April of that year.  So that "Manhattan" was able to knock me out was both amazing, or says something about my youthful resilience.  I am not so sure I have that, now.

                                    According to my records, I last saw this film, back in 2007. Ten years.  An entire decade.  And much has happened--most of it good--over that span of time, to me, in my life.

                                   As I watched "Manhattan" the other day, I felt steeped in the milieu of its characters.  Book lined apartments, eating out, art museums, reading, writing--I have it done it all, though I have not resorted to the literary whoredom that Mary does, in writing movie novelizations to pay the bills.  But who knows about novelizations, anymore?  Do they exist?????????

                                    Diane Keaton, as Mary Wilkie, has the best line in the entire film.  I wondered if her last name was a riff on the writer Marie Rainer Rilke, and it most likely was.  It was also the character I felt most connected to, because, really, I believe, at least to myself, that that is what I have become, and that line could be a personal mantra.  It is just as true about me as about Mary!!!!!!!!!

                               After seeing so many films with great visuals, I cannot tell you how refreshing it was to see "Manhattan," where visual and verbal beauty connect.  Look at this shot!  Stunning!  And that is just one of many.  How many films out there today use words like "didacticism," cohesiveness," and

"fluidity?"  How many Millennials  know what they mean?  Or that words like these actually exist???????   They don't, and my point is further proven because the audience at the screening I attended  was one of largely Baby Boomers, or older.  The Millennials???????  Were they to see this film, they would not know what hit them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              I had forgotten film could offer such visual and auditory pleasure that I was fairly intoxicated by the time "Manhattan" ended. It is an experience one gets from films of the past, rather than the present.

                               I know what you really want me to talk about.  The whole Mariel Hemingway-Tracy thing.  I had forgotten that Mariel, who was very good, received an Oscar nomination (Best Supporting Actress) here--the only actor from the film to do so.  And, in a couple of scenes, there is this long haired blonde who is stunning, and, one can see, is clearly on her way up.  The audience at the screening I was at gasped.  Because the actress is someone who did arrive--and then some.  I am talking, of course, about Meryl Streep.

                               But back to the whole Tracy thing.  Yes, Mariel was great, though some scenes made me uncomfortable back then, and even more so, now.  But this is due, I think to what we now know about Woody himself.  Remember, this was before the whole Soon-Yi thing.  Now, she is outmoded, she is 46!  But what I did not know, before I researched for this post, was that Tracy was based on an actual person.  That person was actress Stacey Nelkin, whom Woody was dating, back when she was a student at New York's Stuyvesant High School!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  So, he was doing it, even back then!  Creep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                               Behavior can be dissed, artistry cannot be dismissed.  Woody was at the top of his game, when he made this--and "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan," in that order, remain my favorites of his films.

                               Which the recent Film Forum viewing proved.  Not only does it hold up, like other masterworks, it gets better with each viewing.

                                Not to mention afterward, one feels like doing something that is SO "Manhattan"--like going to an art museum, or Katz Deli!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                While I almost always end my posts on a ringing phrase, I have a better one here. Listen to George Gershwin's masterpiece, "Rhapsody In Blue," used, along with other of his works, throughout the film.  It is my favorite 20th century musical composition!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                  Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                      
         

This Is The Episode I Was Talking About!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                Three years ago, back in 2014, I wrote a scathing post about TV director Peter Tewkesbury, and his abusive treatment of child actress Lauren Chapin, who played Kathy "Kitten" Anderson on "Father Knows Best."  The episode I thought was the one where it took place was "Big Sister," first aired
on January 8, 1958.  Kathy has a big crying scene at the end. and it is so wrought with depth I figured it went beyond acting.

                                 As Lauren chronicled, on pages 67 through 69, of her 1989 memoir, "Father Really Does Know Best," she was having a bad day.  Hey, everyone does; even child actors. Or, maybe, especially.

                                 Lauren had to do a crying scene.  She doesn't specify the episode, but I concluded it was 1958's "Big Sister," because I remember how powerful the scene was, when I first saw it, and that Kathy, like Lauren, was older.  On the day the scene was to be shot, Lauren just could not focus, and Tewkesbury was getting pressure from the front office.  So, he sent everyone off the set--then called everyone back, and resorted to the oldest trick in the book--verbally abusing the child before everyone so much she breaks down, and cries!!!!!!!!!!!!   When the scene was done, Lauren handled it the way I would have done--she cursed Tewkesbury out, and walked off the set for three days.  Even her tramp stage mother backed her up!

                                   In today's parlance, this would be known as the Joe Mantello School Of Theater Direction--direction by intimidation.  It would never work with me, because, as anyone who knows me can attest, I am not easily intimidated.  You'd better watch it, Joe!  I know right now you are occupied, playing an over aged Tom Wingfield, but if we ever do cross professional paths, then, honey, you will have to deal with my diva-ness!!!!!!!!!!!  And, then, look out!  If you thought Streisand was trouble to William Wyler--WAIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                   As for the episode, watching it, years later, was something of a surprise.  I recalled the story involved Kathy going to camp, and Betty being the counselor of her cabin, and that super-competitive Betty, the classic sibling overachiever, rode Kathy hard, because she wanted her to be just like her, and win everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                   But there was a bit more to it, than that!  The underlying motivation for Betty's wrath was that, before leaving for camp, she caught Kathy reading her diary. Granted, that was wrong of Kathy, but, then, if it was so private, why didn't Betty hide it better?

                                    I had forgotten that Bud goes to camp, too.  Betty gets him a dishwasher's job.  So, this is pretty much the children's show, with Jim and Margaret (Robert Young and Jane Wyatt--just love them both, especially Jane!!!!!!!!!) sort of inserted between scenes.

                                     Bud (Billy Gray) is the first one to get it.  Betty acts like such a bitch at camp you would wonder if she was on the rag, or had a yeast infection. Elinor Donahue does such a convincing job of treating Kathy so hatefully, she foreshadows Bette Davis, as Baby Jane!!!!!!!!!!!!
After a time, I wanted to smack Betty across her face!  This episode could also have been entitled "The Golden Arrow," because goddamn overachieving Betty drives Kathy to a nervous breakdown in an effort to push her to win that award, and gain counseling credit for herself.

                                     Kathy's crying scene is heartbreaking, and it starts with the same angled shot as Judy Garland  starting to return home from home, in "The Wizard Of Oz."  And a storm is brewing, too!!!!!!!!!

                                     Things end on a hopeful note, but, as far as I am concerned, the damage was done.  Donahue's animosity was so convincing, I never trusted Betty Anderson again.  And when you add the other layer of subtext to what Lauren was actually going through, this episode, while a must, is doubly hard to watch.

                                       I can tell you one thing.  That repressed lesbian Camp Director, Mrs. Ellis, played by veteran character actress Florida Friebus, had Betty's number, from the get go!  And you can bet, Betty will NOT be invited back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                        Bitches always get found out, darlings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please Explain Why This Film Has So Many Devotees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                            It has taken me several days to getting around to writing this post, because I had a lot to process.  Let me start by saying I finally arrived at an answer to the question posed above, which shall be revealed at the end.  For those who care about seeing this film, never having done so, be aware I need to discuss revelations within, so it would be wise to stop reading here.

                                            Anyway, this is how it went down.

                                            Last Friday evening, a friend of mine and her husband, took David and I out to dinner.  They were not able to come to our shindig, so this was a way of making up for that.  We went to an exotic restaurant, near the Grand Army Plaza Brooklyn Public Library, called Cheryl's Global Soul Food.  The food was good, and exotic, though not my idea of traditional soul food.

                                              As many of you on here know, I was raised Catholic, but am no Bernadette or Jacinta.  Still, I try and do my best, by observing meatless Fridays during Lent.  Which I did here, ordering some type of Cuban black bean soup, a vegetable dish with couscous, and a blueberry bread pudding, with vanilla ice cream.  Scrumptious, though I noticed with the main dish, it was rather spicy.  Each time I ingested it, my mouth tingled, and my sinuses opened so much I felt able to sing "Norma" at the Met.

                                            We said our good nights, and went home.  We made all the right connections, getting home sooner than expected, which meant we got to bed sooner than planned.  Both of us went right to sleep.  But, three hours later, I awoke.  My stomach was rumbling and moving, like the English Channel during a storm.  I realized if I did not get to the bathroom, there would be a catastrophe.  I made it, sat down.  What followed you can guess.  I was in there for twenty minutes.

                                              The following day, we were supposed to go to visit friends in New Jersey.  So, I thought, let's see if I can go back to sleep, and see how I feel.  I did, but, when I awoke, my stomach still did not feel right.  I told David what had happened, and how fearful I still was of having an accident, should we travel.  He agreed, and we cancelled our plans.

                                                Because I still was out of sorts, I couldn't concentrate enough to read, so I just surfed the Web.  Ho hum.  Suddenly, in the late afternoon, David calls from the bedroom--"Hey, 'Let's Scare Jessica To Death' is on.  You want to watch it?"

                                                  I thought this would be a perfect distraction.  I had heard about this film since it came out, in 1971, but never got around to seeing it.  I was aware it had a cult following, and I was curious as to why.  Well, darlings, your guess is as good as mine.

                                                   The film features Zohra Lampert in the title role.  Next to Angelina in "Splendor In The Grass," ten years before, this is her best known role.  Jessica is an emotionally disturbed woman, released from a mental institution, and transported by her asshole husband Brian, and hippy friend, Woody, to a remote country house, in an equally remote country town in Connecticut.  Poor Jessica; as a mental patient she is in a no win situation.  Isolation is not the best choice, but neither is the driving pace of Manhattan.  What's a girl to do????????????

                                                     By virtue of the title, I thought this would basically be "Gaslight" with some ambiguous, supernatural overtones.  But it is more than that.  As I said, recently, about "La La Land," the film has great visuals, and that is it.  There are some brilliant images in "Jessica'--the house, the mist shrouded lake, a couple of iconic shots-- but there is nothing to support it, because the script starts to go in so many directions, and the acting seems it is improvised as they go along.  Lampert was a devotee of the Strasberg Method, and she uses every trick  in the book here, and gets away with it, because she is playing a former mental patient.  No one else in this film has  an excuse.  But there is actually one performance that is on a par with Lampert's;  at times almost steals the show from her, and that is character actress Mariclaire Costello (whom I knew from her role as the mother in "The Fitzpatricks," and her bit role in "Ordinary People") as this strange, post-hippy type girl they meet, named Emily.  Whom they just casually allow--a total stranger, mind you; never mind what she turns out to be--to crash their place and live with them.  A seemingly itinerant drifter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                                     The arrival of Emily is both when things start to liven up, and fall apart.  I immediately caught on that Emily is not at all what she seems, but when Jessica starts seeing the Mute Girl, and hearing voices, I thought one actress was playing both roles.  The voices Jessica hears are clearly overlaps of Mariclaire's, so I, at first thought, it was she playing  the Mute Girl, who, like Peter Quint and Miss Jessel in "The Turn Of The Screw," (one of many genre works this film references) is always seen from a distance.  Later, in a confrontation scene with a close-up, it can be seen Mariclaire is not playing this role; it is actually Gretchen Corbett, best known from "The Rockford Files."

                                   Mariclaire, as Emily, just steals the show.  This iconic shot of her rising out of the water, is a great iconic moment; one of the few the film has.  By this point, if you have not figured out that Emily is not what she says she is, the point is made apparent, now.

                                    But is she a supernatural being?  Or an adultress who just wants to get rid of Jessica, to get her husband?  Well--

                                    There is definitely a supernatural component. Jessica and her husband find this nineteenth century daguerreotype of the home's previous owners, the Bishop family.  To the left is the Bishop's young daughter, Abigail.  Abigail is modeling a wedding dress she was to be married in, but never made it to the altar, because she drowned in the lake's cove, back in 1880, at the age of twenty.  This really peaked my interest.  I wanted the film to further explore Abigail's story, as to who she was supposed to marry, and why she drowned.  Was it murder?  Suicide?  Who?  And why? Had the film taken this route, it would have met with my artistic approval.  But the filmmaker, John Hancock (!!!!!) obviously only cares about getting off cheap; to hell with logic.  Or maybe he really thought he was making a low budget masterpiece, because there are those out there, who consider it such.

                                     The truth about Abigail is revealed by an antique dealer Jessica and her husband seek out, attempting to sell the daguerreotype.  He reveals the body was never found, and that she is still said to be roaming the countryside, as a vampire!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                       Say, what??????????  No one who drowns becomes a vampire.  UNLESS her death was a suicide, because, according to lore, suicides are said to become vampires, at the time of their death.  But, though Hancock is skillful enough to homage "Carnival Of Souls," with Emily's rising out of the water in Abigail's wedding gown, I don't think he is aware enough to be didactic in the literary sense.  Though even that begs to be questioned.

                                         Because there is something of a lesbian component to the Emily-Jessica scenes, comparison to Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's vampire work, "Carmilla," have been made.  Now, I have never read this work, so this is something I must remedy right away.  The component is clearly there, but whether it is an actual homage to the  work, or just a cheap coincidence, will require another post, once I read "Carmilla!!!!!!!!!!!"

                                         The question of Abigail's vampiric state is played fast and loose.  She is seen about in the daylight, and when she goes for the jugular, most of the time she slits victims' throats with a knife, before drinking their blood.  Vampires have teeth for that, darlings!!!!!!!!!  Yet, in some instances--especially with Brian (the husband), Woody (the friend) and Jessica, she does bite!!!!!!!!!!  Huh??????????????????

                                          Also, why are Emily and Jessica the only women around?  Clearly, the men of the town are all dead--another iconic shot, as all of them, with Emily/Abigail, watch Jessica in the boat on the lake.  Why they give up on her, when she has to return to land, is as much of a mystery as everything else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                           So, the town is a ghost town.  And vampires need blood to stay alive.  So, what do Emily and the men (who must be vampires, as they all have marks on their throats) supposed to do?  Clearly, they will never leave the area!  So, will they just die, or what??????????????

                                           As you can see, nothing in this film makes any kind of sense.  Is it all some kind of dream?  Maybe!  Yet, horror has to have some kind of structural foundation to tell a convincing enough story, and this one does not.  It is not brilliant enough to be masterful, or fun enough to be campy.

                                           What might have be interesting would have been if the film had kept its original intentions.  It was to have been a spoof, entitled "It Drinks Hippy Blood," and the Emily/Abigail character was to have been some sort of hairy creature.  When director Hancock decided to go for a so-called darker, more Gothic sensibility, he and the screenwriter, Lee Kalcheim, had a falling out.  Though Kalcheim's name (as Norman Jonas) appears on the credits, as does Hancock's (as Ralph Rose).

                                             The visuals offer a lot of potential, which the script does not live up to, resulting in as frustrating an experience as "La La Land."  Yet, such renowned practitioners of the genre, like Stephen King and the late Rod Serling, consider this film a masterwork.  I simply don't get it.

                                              And, yet, I do. Here is the answer you  have been awaiting.  The devotees of this film see in it whatever it is they want to see.  The non-devoted see right through it.

                                              The title, "Let's Scare Jessica To Death" is brilliant.  But it should really have been called "Let's Disappoint The Raving Queen!"

                                      I love this shot, darlings!  It illustrates such potential for this film.  Strindberg, or camp?  You tell me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These Two Were The Supreme Embodiments Of Fifties Teen Spinsterhood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                               Actresses Norma Eberhardt and Virginia Vincent may have been way past adolescence themselves, when they played Rachel Mayberry and Jenny Blake in "The Return Of Dracula, back in 1958, but in so doing they presented a true picture, especially of the time, when everyone, including women themselves, knew who would eventually end up as spinsters.

                                Even I, from the sand pile up, had a sense about which girls would and wouldn't. In some ways, they followed the same trajectory of Rachel and Jenny--soft spoken, somewhat plain (of course!), sweet, vulnerable, and dedicated.  It is no contrivance that both Rachel's and Jenny's outside lives revolve around church.  Such women, especially as they mature, find themselves, distraction, and contentment there, doing acts of charity.  There is nothing wrong with that, and both they and the community they serve are better for it.

                                  Of course, during my Spinster Years, I tried so hard to be like Rachel and Jenny.  But there was just too much of Pearl Chavez in me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                                   My recent viewing of "The Return Of Dracula" made me realize how much spinsterhood is a subtext here.  It is how Jenny is drawn so easily to the Vampire, and how Rachel is able to almost rebuff her hot boyfriend, Tim Hansen, played by Ray Stricklyn.  She is going to dedicate her life to being a spinster. Interestingly, Rachel's home life is a matriarchy; Mother rules, there is no father, and no explanation why.  Remember Eleanor Rigby??????????????

                                  Spinsterhood was the great mystery of the 1950s.  Truman Capote, Tennessee Williams, and William Inge all incorporated it into some of their masterworks.

                                   If only Old Tom (Williams) had written about spinsterhood and vampires. Now, that would really have been Southern Gothic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!