Showing posts with label classic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic. Show all posts

you've got mail from the shop around the corner

I've known David Bishop for about a year and a half. He is officially one of my favorite "Internet people". He also, by virtue of his impeccable (read: similar to my) taste in movies, is one of the three or so people on the planet who can be called my Movie Muse. About 90% of his recommendations make it onto my Netflix queue.

It was at David's suggestion that I rented The Shop Around the Corner, a 1940 film starring Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan. I've been a fan of You've Got Mail since it first came out, and The Shop Around the Corner is the chief inspiration (along with AOL, I guess) for You've Got Mail.

Both films center around a man and woman who correspond with each other as mystery pen pals, and who coincidentally know (and hate) one another in real life. Of course, eventually the jig is up, they discover the identity of the other, and fall madly in love.

Yeah. This could never, ever happen. So why do I like the idea so much?

Aside from these basic plot points, the two movies really aren't that similar. Really, how could they be? One is set in a leather goods shop in 1940's Budapest while the other is set in New York City, half a decade later, with the disembodied voice of America Online ("You've got mail!") as the third lead character.


Let's start with The Shop Around the Corner. Like I said, I enjoy the basic premise, unrealistic as it may be. But somehow Stewart and Sullavan never muster enough chemistry to convince the viewer that they like each other after all. It just seems clunky, abrupt, and absolutely un-romantic. Even the subplot of an affair with the boss' wife comes off as superfluous and, frankly, boring.

In You've Got Mail, on the other hand, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan knock it out of the park. Come on, we all knew they were fantastic every time they share screen space. I've loved them in everything they've done. (What's that? Even Joe vs. the Volcano, you ask? Especially Joe vs. the Volcano.) I think the plot could be crafted by Mary Higgins Clark, and these two would still sell it. I should point out, though that this script was very well crafted. The dialogue is superb (remember Tom Hanks' character relating every life problem to something from The Godfather?)--and in the subplot department: Meg Ryan's little shop being driven out of business by Tom Hanks' Barnes & Noble-esque leviathan was topical and touching.


All that having been said, it is a little distracting watching the workings of the Internet circa 1999, but that was inevitable given how heavily the film relied on a fleeting technological gimmick.

So this is why I let David influence me so much. The Shop Around the Corner was not nearly as entertaining as my pick, You've Got Mail, but I'm really glad I saw it. My appreciation of this fluffy little romantic comedy is greatly enhanced by having seen its predecessor.

Next up on the Netflix queue, at David's (and Nathaniel's) urging: Memento.
...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

the birds

I first saw Alfred Hitchcock's classic thriller The Birds when I was a kid, maybe ten or eleven. It scared the piss out of me. Granted, this one isn't all that frightening... but if I'm a wuss nowadays when it comes to scary movies (and I am), I was a bonafide fraidy-cat at the tender age of eleven. Of course, back then I couldn't really articulate what was so terrifying; I just knew that Hitchcock turned me into a quivering pile of gelatinous goo. Thankfully, it did get easier (and even a bit funny) after repeat viewings.

I had the chance to see this classic again last night, thanks to the magic of TCM, and I took the opportunity to try to figure out what's so dang freaky about The Birds. My thoughts:

  1. There's no music.
    Alfred Hitchcock's movies (notably Psycho) are famous for their terrifying scores. The grating, dischordant strains of music are a huge element of the fear we experience during these movies. The Birds, by contrast, is shockingly silent. I first noticed this in the scene where we first see a man pecked to death... It's totally quiet, and Hitchcock just uses a triple-zoom-in to make it super-scary. Even during the attack scenes, all we hear are the otherwordly squawks of the birds-gone-wild. I may have missed some opening bits of score... but the only music I heard was the creepy song the kids in the schoolhouse sing as the birds amass on the jungle gym.

  2. It's not just about the attacks; it's also about the reactions.
    Hitchcock was always really good at exploring the creepy psychological motivations of his characters. That's really evident in Vertigo, Marnie (which I just saw last night for the first time), and of course Psycho. Even in The Birds, where the menace is more tangible, the really freaky thing is peoples' reactions to the crisis. One woman in a cafe screeches, "You're eeeevillll!!!" at Tippi Hedren; Jessica Tandy rushes home and takes to her bed without saying a word after seeing a friend's eyes pecked out; Tippi Hedren screams and claws at imaginary winged assailants after a particularly bad attack is over. The reactions of the characters are almost as scary as thousands of crazed sparrows coming down the chimney. I said almost.

  3. Everyone looks right into the camera.
    In the really intense scenes, whenever someone's screaming, it seems like they're making direct eye contact with the camera. And everyone seems to have really piercing blue eyes. (I saw the color version.) The bloody guy outside the phone booth, the lady who thinks Tippi's evil, and of course Tippi herself, all look directly into the camera in the midst of their terror. Even the birds fly directly into the camera in the final attack scene, when Tippi gets mauled in the upstairs bedroom.

So maybe now I understand it a bit better... and of course I love Alfred Hitchcock. He's a master. But I have to admit I still squirmed a bit last night.

...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

singin' in the rain

As most of my fellow film gluttons certainly know, TCM held their regular "31 Days of Oscar" film festival last month (God bless 'em). One of the many fantastic films I caught was the classic MGM musical (some say the best of all time) Singin' in the Rain.

My friend David, knowing I'd seen it, has asked me repeatedly for a few thoughts. So, here goes:









  1. I should have seen this movie long ago. Before watching it, I had no idea of the plot (a 1920's movie studio scrambles to keep up with the sudden demand for "talkies"). For a bonafide movie buff like me, the in-jokes were priceless. It's always so much fun to see the movie industry poke fun at itself.
  2. Gene Kelly is a badass. His dance numbers are insane... especially the "Singin' in the Rain" sequence. I've since read that he actually had a flu and high fever while filming that. Awesome.
  3. I already knew I loved Cyd Charisse from her turn as Fiona in Brigadoon. The hot "Broadway" number in this film cements that for me.
  4. This is, refreshingly, a plain old comedic musical. It's not epic and comedic like Sound of Music, or epic and dramatic like Fiddler on the Roof. It's just really satisfying. I totally dug it.
...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

sabrina, sabrina

I am one of the nine people in this world (Captain Crash included) that actually prefers the 1995 Harrison Ford/Julia Ormond Sabrina to the classic 1954 version with Audrey Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart.

I know, I know. But don't go trashing my movie cred right away... let me explain!

Of course no one can compare to Hepburn and Bogey. I know that... everybody knows that. Her fresh face and elegant manner is inimitable, though it is hard to accept her as the frumpy teenager in the beginning of the film. And Bogart is just so damn moody and mysterious--but he doesn't project the vulnerability which is necessary to make Linus Larrabee (his character) work.

I am fully aware that the original Sabrina is a classic, and that people have trouble with classics being tampered with.

However...

When I first saw the 1995 version of Sabrina, I had no idea that the original even existed. Maybe that allowed me to see it with a fresh eye. The story is enchanting: a dowdy girl has a massive crush on a rich playboy who doesn't know she exists... she goes off to Paris and reinvents herself... she comes back and--boom! He falls head over heels. What comes after is even better, with an extremely satisfying ending.

In both movies, the story is fairly the same, with a few teensy changes: for one, the 1995 Sabrina goes to work for Vogue instead of cooking school (cooking school? such a domestic cliché! and the Vogue thing explains her transformation so much better). And naturally, the grand old steamships are replaced with jets, including the Concorde.

But what swept me away when I first saw Sabrina at 16--was Paris! Oh, how it made me want to go to Paris. The City of Lights is almost another character in the film; it's so pivotal to Sabrina's reinvention. That's evident in one of my favorite lines, spoken by Ormond as Sabrina: "I met myself in Paris." (Incidentally, the reinvention theme so strikes a chord with me right now.)

The 1995 film was actually filmed there (unlike the original), so we're treated to lush Parisian vistas and some fabulous French actors. The remake captures the city so effectively that you can almost feel the mist on your face as Sabrina meanders down the Ponte des Artes, and smell the flowers when she wanders through the Jardin des Tuileries.

I saw the original version of the film for the first time last week. It was definitely amusing, with a lot more laughs than the Sabrina I'm used to... (and I have to say, Hepburn singing La Vie En Rose was supersweet) but in my opinion, it just doesn't compare. Sabrina was done right in 1995.
...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS

oh happy day!

After 100 days, the writers are writing again. Unfortunately, TV may have lost me forever... but I'm stoked for the Oscars! (Please let them not be a snooze-a-thon.)

I've been wildly busy this week and haven't finished any movies since Sunday! (I got about halfway through Roman Holiday.) I'm a bad, bad movie blogger. Tonight I hope to rectify.

Tomorrow night I'm catching Definitely, Maybe, and then Friday night I'm seeing the Oscar-nominated shorts! If I were any more excited, I'd be vibrating.
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • RSS
Copyright © 2008-2010 The Center Seat
Free WordPress Themes designed by EZwpthemes
Converted by Theme Craft
Powered by Blogger Templates