Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Sidney Blackmer'.
Found 2 results
-
The more I see Sidney Blackmer, the more I like him - he's not a legendary leading man (he was born in 1895), but he's a solid, reliable actor, and considering how many films they were churning out in the 1950s, those were most likely in short supply. I've watched him in several things now, and I've never seen him in a performance that I haven't at least "liked." "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is a very timely film, even 60+ years after its release - it deals with the justness of the death penalty, especially in cases that involve only circumstantial evidence, and how some politically minded people use it as a tool in their ambitious plans. This is a short movie - only 80-minutes long - so it involves just a minimal investment of your time. --- An off-topic comment, having little to do with the film, but sometimes, when I see a letter, or newspaper, while watching a video, I'll freeze it to see what all is in there. I did just such a thing here - the main story pertaining to the film is all over the top. But do you want to see something really weird? Look at the title of the article towards the bottom-right: --- One thing I've noticed is just how popular "Scotch and Soda" was as a drink in the movies in the 1950s - people drink it *all the time*. I've seen it ordered in films written about here no less than a half-dozen times, probably closer to a dozen. Another random fact, not relevant to this film, but still, definitely a trend in movies from the 1950s. When's the last time you've seen someone order a Scotch and Soda? *** SPOILERS FOLLOW *** Thirty minutes into this film, there's a hole in the plot the size of Crater Lake. If it comes to fruition, the film goes from being a crime drama to a tragedy, all because of some really *stupid* planning. Right. Sixty minutes into the film, Crater Lake has just been hit by an asteroid, rendering the hole ten-times deeper and wider. Anyone - and I mean *anyone* - who couldn't see this coming, is simply not a sophisticated student of film, and I'm not saying that to sound like a douche-bag, but it was *SO* obvious that it was painful. So obvious that I can't believe it happened. This was one of the worst plot developments I have ever seen in a film, and I simply cannot believe that it happened in an otherwise decent story. How could people not have covered this angle? Or ... did they? I don't want to accuse this film just yet of being a piece of rubbish, but if this plot-hole doesn't resolve itself in a clever and outstanding manner, then this film is just plain lousy. I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, since there's fully thirty minutes left, and the two protagonists weren't stupid. But were the screenwriter, producer, and director stupid? I sure hope not, because for this plot to turn on what is an impossibly *moronic* mistake would be an incredible shame - I refuse to believe it's going to happen. Yet. You know what? I have a confession to make: Every time I think I'm so God damned smart, I end up being exposed as the stupid, naive, dilettante that I am - and so it is with "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." I was completely duped, and it was entirely of my own doing - no major motion picture would have left a hole open so yawning that it was a chasm, and this was no exception. The *only* thing I have to say in my defense is that I have the confidence to admit when I'm a fool, and I'm as much of a fool regarding this film as with any I've ever seen. I am as dumb as dirt - I should have simply ridden the ride, and got off at the Exit, which is what people are supposed to do, instead of trying to be Mr. Expert, and being exposed for the naive, ignorant, wannabe that I am. Damn, I hate being wrong, but I *especially* hate being *THIS* wrong. This was a very good film. A much better film than I am a viewer of films. In my meager defense, I had *no* idea until just now this movie was directed by the great genius, Fritz Lang. Well done, Mr, Lang, well done.
-
*** SPOILER ALERT *** (Please do not read this if you're planning on watching the film for the first time.) I haven't seen "Rosemary's Baby" in decades - the only thing I remembered about it was that it starred Mia Farrow giving birth to the devil's spawn, and now that I'm prompted, that it was directed by Roman Polanski. The year that I've recently concentrated on was (coincidentally) Roger Ebert's first year as a critic, 1967, and Rosemary's Baby is from 1968, making it right after what I consider to be one of the most significant years for Hollywood. Incidentally, I've read Ebert more posthumously than I did when he was alive, and although I don't always agree with him, I consider him to be one of the greatest critics in any field that I've ever read. My father used to *love* "Siskel & Ebert & the Movies" - "This is the best show on television," I remember him joyfully telling me, repeatedly - as my father became older and more feeble, he rented 2-3 movies a day, every day, for several years - besides my mom, movies were my father's great love when he got older, and he saw more of them than anyone I've ever known. As a second tangent, I remember very well Mad Magazine's movie satire, "Rosemia's Boo-boo" - not the details (I was only 7); just the fact that it existed - the cover is pretty funny: One amazing thing is that Rosemary's Baby only came out five years before "The Exorcist" - it seems like a *lot* longer to me. There are several movies I distinctly remember my parents making a big deal out of going to see: The Exorcist was one, and "The Godfather" was another, both being around the same time. I was "treated" to seeing "2001: A Space Odyssey" when it came out the same year as Rosemary's Baby - I didn't appreciate it at all, but I remember the usher selling pamphlets, walking around the theater before the film started, hawking, "2001: A Space Odyssey, 2001: A Space Odyssey - Get the official brochure for 2001: A Space Odyssey" - it's funny what kids remember, and what they don't, because that had - by far - the greatest impact on me. I don't remember another time when I've seen an usher hawking brochures in a theater before a movie like that, but my memory doesn't mean much. I love the subtlety of John Cassavetes in this film, although much of that was probably due to the screenplay of Polanski - he changed from being a completely human cynic, to an agent of the devil, and the viewer is unable to pinpoint exactly when this change happened - although in retrospect, it happened early on. Right when Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow) reaches her breaking point about the quack, Dr. Sapirstein (Ralph Bellamy), and the pain she's been in for an extended period of time, the pain instantly goes away - that's a brilliant ploy on the part of the Devil. This isn't the first film to juxtapose raw evil with a child (I can think of "The Bad Seed," and also "The Twilight Zone" episode, "It's a Good Life," both of which used pre-adolescents, but neither of which used a fetus or neonate) - so this might be one of the first-ever movies to impose Satanism on a pregnant woman, certainly running parallel (and opposite) to the Virgin Mary giving birth to the baby Jesus. I just now this afternoon had a piano lesson, and I mentioned to my teacher that I naturally think polyphonically, so the very second I heard "The name is an anagram," I was sure I knew what it meant: The "tanas" root would redirect as "Satan." - but, of course, I was wrong, as the root is spelled "tannis"; the real meaning of that cryptic instruction is much more clever. Rosemary also taught me a new word: "covens." Man, I hate to say this, but when Rosemary has sequestered herself in her apartment - attempting to flee her creep-o husband, Guy, and Dr. Sapirstein - when she's on the phone, and the two sneak by her in the background, they look *exactly* like something out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks." Now try and see that scene - supposedly fraught with tension - without laughing your ass off (the movie is free with a Hulu membership, and the scene takes place with 20:30 remaining in the film). Goodness, I'm at the part with the Asian gentleman with the camera. Ugh. I actually *still* don't know what's going to happen, although it has already been revealed who the baby's real father is; we just haven't seen "little Adrian" yet. Wow, I just finished the film: *Very* well-done ending. I was fearing that they'd show the baby, and that would have ruined everything - you can't show pure evil, but you can imagine it. I also thought Rosemary might have been carrying a second knife, and was going to kill the baby (without showing him), which would have been a brute-force outcome; as it turns out, maternal bond(age) wins out in the end - no matter what. In 2014, the Library of Congress selected Rosemary's Baby for preservation in the National Film Registry; I suspect if Rosemary had killed the baby at the end - which I believe would happen had it been filmed for today's audiences - the film would not be such a classic.
