Reviews Written By: A62G4QX6XQVLPprovided by Amazon.com |
 | ||
 | Berlin Diaries, 1940-1945 | |
 | "A different WWII perspective" | 2008-09-19 |
| (4.5 stars) This book is quite unlike the typical WWII-era memoir which most folks are used to. The most obvious difference is that Missie is an exiled Russian princess, and not some ordinary citizen or refugee in Germany and Austria. She also wrote her diaries in English instead of in German or Russian, so she's really not a full part of the society she's living in. In spite of the differing perspective, the story is very riveting and well-told. Gaps in the narrative are filled in by editorial comments by Missie's brother George, letters she wrote and sent during the missing periods, and reminiscences from Missie, friends, and relatives years later. For someone who isn't well-versed in WWII history, the editorial comments will be very helpful, such as details of the infamous massacre at Katyn, or more information about some battle or event that's only alluded to. Though she is immune to the suffering and deprivations of the ordinary people around her in the beginning, by 1943 Missie and her circle of friends and relatives start to feel the heat. The Allied bombings raids on Berlin didn't make a distinction between commoners and nobility, and food and fuel shortages affected everyone. Because of her association with a few people involved in the July 20, 1944 plot to kill Hitler, Missie eventually has to get out of Berlin, eventually making her way into Vienna, where she works as a nurse for most of the duration of the war. Deprivations and bombing raids continue in Vienna, though, and as the war nears its final days, she once again is faced with the necessity of escaping to a safer locale. Not only is it imperative that she get out of the way of the fighting, but she also doesn't want to be discovered by the Red Army, as she is a White Russian. While it's always difficult to make value judgments on someone's journal, since we can't put ourselves in that person's footsteps, and because this person probably never dreamt it would be published, I did get the sense that a few other reviewers did, that there's a seeming indifference to the fate of the ordinary people around her. While Europe is going up in flames, Missie, her friends, and her family are still going to parties, hob-nobbing with royalty and nobility, driving around in cars, drinking champagne, using perfume, having strings pulled for them so they can have nice jobs, saving ridiculous luxury items, and staying in castles and manors. Even when the war finally catches up to even the nobility, she still has all of these powerful connections who can get her exit passes, travel permits, castles and estates to escape to, jobs to be accepted at, and cars and trains to flee in. Ordinary Europeans often had to escape on foot and drag their necessary possessions in carts, were left homeless, couldn't turn their noses up at horse meat if that were their only food available, didn't have powerful connections to save them from harm and grant them safe passage through dangerous territory, and cared more about escaping with their lives, the clothes on their backs, and a few needed items, instead of rejoicing that some Count friend of theirs managed to save something stupid like fur coats and artwork in his automobile. And while the selling point of the book is that Missie was intimately involved in the July 20 plot, I didn't see more than superficial circumstantial evidence for that. She was friends with some of the plotters and tried to get some of them out of jail, but other than that, there isn't any compelling proof that she knew way more than she was telling. That isn't even the main focus of the book. And since there are so many people moving in Missie's circle, it's sometimes hard to remember who's who. Overall, though, it is a very interesting book for anyone who's interested in a different perspective of WWII, or who's interested in the White Russian experience abroad. Obviously it's not Missie's fault that she was born into nobility and could have all of these wartime luxuries and safety nets that ordinary people could only dream of. | ||
 | Imagine: John Lennon - The Definitive Film Portrait | |
 | "A worthy documentary" | 2008-08-15 |
| John is my favorite Beatle, so I really enjoyed watching this documentary about his incredible life. Although by now some of the film footage has been issued in other films (this was after all made in 1988), not everyone has seen all of the films and documentaries made about John or The Beatles, and it's always a treat regardless to see interviews and film footage you haven't seen before. Among the great moments are the confrontation with cartoonist Al Capp during John and Yoko's bed-in, John's heated argument with a female journalist who thought turning in his MBE was some empty protest, interview footage with John's aunt Mimi, and the bonus feature of an interview with John's former schoolmaster. The film is also loaded with great songs, many of them accompanied by videos, like "Strawberry Fields Forever," "Mother," "Imagine" of course, "Jealous Guy," and "God" (a song that always gives me chills). As great as the documentary is, though, and as priceless as the film footage is, I kind of wish there had been more balance given to the different parts of John's life. I know that the original first cut was massive (20 hours), and that obviously it had to be edited down a lot to be shown in theatres, but another hour or so wouldn't have hurt. It seemed like most of the focus was on John's life in the Seventies, which in itself could be the subject of several films. It would have been nice to have given equal time to his childhood, early adulthood, and Beatle years in addition to mostly his solo years. While most fans already know his pre-1970 life backwards and forwards, particularly the Sixties, it still could have been expanded a bit more. When you're getting just John's perspective on the Beatle years, it's a slightly different experience than learning about them as a collective group. Other than that, I thought the film was fantastic, and with a number of nice extras. | ||
 | Concert for George (DVD) | |
| "Great tribute, second disc unnecessary" | 2008-08-10 |
| This was a really moving, energetic, heartfelt tribute to George and his music. The viewer can really tell that all of the musicians on the stage truly cared about him and knew him, by all of the emotion they put into the music. It's such a striking contrast to some of the musical tributes that have been put together for John, where the majority of the musicians just didn't have that kind of connection to him other than being fans, weren't friends and didn't work together. Just about everyone you would expect showed up, like Eric Clapton, Billy Preston, Jeff Lynne, Ravi Shankar, Paul and Ringo, and Tom Petty. And since George loved Monty Python so much, they provide entertainment during the midway point. I admit I'm not really a big fan of their style of comedy, but I loved "The Lumberjack Song." The show opens with a long program of Indian music; I know George loved Indian music, and his love of Indian music inspired me to get interested in Indian music, philosophy, and religion as well, but even I found it to be a bit tedious after 40 uninterrupted minutes. I guess I haven't acquired a taste for Indian music in such large doses yet. After the long Indian program and the Monty Python intermission, things get down to business with the band. Although Eric Clapton is by and large the leading person in this band, he never overwhelms the proceedings. All of the various singers and musicians get a chance to shine, either when doing a solo or when jamming in harmony with everyone else. While there are some songs that aren't as great as others (e.g., Tom Petty's voice isn't well-suited for "Taxman," and Paul's decision to sing "For You Blue" as one of his numbers is a bit strange, since it's not one of George's more memorable songs), overall the concert is great. Highlights include Ringo's "Photograph," Billy Preston's soulful sweet singing on "Isn't It a Pity" and "My Sweet Lord," Joe Brown's closing "I'll See You in My Dreams," Tom Petty's "I Need You" (his voice is perfect for it, and it's long been one of my favorite of George's Beatles' songs), and Paul's moving rendition of "All Things Must Pass," a song he and John long ago rejected as good enough for a Beatles' record. The first disc, which runs about two and a half hours, is so perfect that there's no need for the second disc. The 20 or so minutes of interviews and extras could have easily been put onto the first disc. Why would anyone want to see the edited version on the second disc when s/he's already seen the full-length masterpiece? It's not even like these are different versions of the same songs or with different camera angles; it's the same exact concert, only with songs played out of order and some songs interrupted by interviews with the musicians! If one only wants to see certain songs, or to skip past the opening Indian program, that's what the scene selection feature is for. I would have easily given it 5 stars were it not for the superfluous second disc. | ||
 | Come Together - A Night for John Lennon's Words and Music | |
 | "It was okay" | 2008-07-25 |
| While the intentions of the people who put this benefit tribute together certainly seem very sincere and heartfelt, I just wasn't that hugely impressed by it overall. The vast majority of the people covering John's songs (most of them from his Beatle days) did not personally know him, which probably would have added a deeper level to the covers. Obviously the biggest omissions were Paul and Ringo, and his own son Julian, who seems to be a better musician than Sean. I didn't even recognise some of the singers on the bill. Most of the performances weren't that memorable or moving to me. While well-meaning, this tribute doesn't come anywhere close to the moving professional example of 'The Concert for George,' which had much better direction and selection of musicians. The best performances were Stone Temple Pilots on "Revolution," Alanis Morisette's "Dear Prudence," Dave Matthews's "In My Life," and Cyndi Lauper's beautiful rendition of "Strawberry Fields Forever" at Strawberry Fields in Central Park. Most of the rest of the covers were at best mediocre and unmemorable, and at worst downright awful. Among the worst performances were Shelby Lynne's "Mother" (John's powerful original made me sob uncontrollably the first time I ever heard it, and this dismal cover sounds like something you'd find in a country-western karaoke bar), Lou Reed's "Jealous Guy" (also doesn't begin to hold a candle to the moving original), Sean Lennon, Moby, and Rufus Wainwright's "Across the Universe," and Marc Anthony's "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." The only compelling reason I can see for wanting to buy and not rent this one are the film and audio clips of John in between songs, most of which I hadn't seen or heard before, like his in-depth explanation of what he really meant in "Imagine" when he talked about imagining no religion. (It actually was not some sort of attack on religion, but more on the formal denominations that separate us.) Overall, this tribute was okay, but not the type of thing I'd be interested in watching again. | ||
 | Girl Meets God: On the Path to a Spiritual Life | |
| "Mixed feelings about this" | 2008-07-17 |
| (3.5 stars) I found this book to be genuinely captivating, insightful, intelligent, and nicely-written. Ms. Winner is obviously extremely intelligent and well-read, and isn't a shabby writer at all. She's also very honest and emotional about her life and religious experiences, even when it could be argued that some of these details aren't relevant (for example, who really needs to know she wears fishnets and doesn't shave her legs?). My issues with the book lie elsewhere. As she goes through the calendar year (mostly) according to Christian holidays and seasons in her newfound Episcopal Church, Ms. Winner weaves a nonlinear narrative of her religious upbringing (she was raised in a Southern Reform shul and Jewish by patrilineal descent), her growing level of observance as she became a young woman, her conversion to Orthodox Judaism to (as she saw it) make her Jewish identity legit in the eyes of everyone, her days as an undergrad at Columbia, the pull she felt towards Christianity only a couple of years after becoming officially Orthodox, her transition to the Episcopal faith while in Cambridge, and how she tries to make peace with her religious past and present without disrespecting either one. This story in itself could have been so much better had she chosen to write more about her second conversion. While there was ample material on her Jewish upbringing, her pull towards Orthodoxy, her first conversion, and the Orthodox life she lived in her late teens and early twenties, I was left wondering why exactly she decided to convert to Christianity, and why she chose Anglicanism/Episcopalianism in particular. Having a strange dream about mermaids and a Jesus who looks like Daniel Day-Lewis, and feeling drawn to the Christian art in a local museum, seem rather silly and shallow reasons for altering one's religious life so radically. Her attachment to her latest religion seems very sincere, but I wanted to know more about what exactly led her to it, why she decided to cross the point of no return. Ms. Winner's reasons for leaving Judaism, the faith she had known her entire life, also seem rather shallow, unless there were some much deeper reasons she chose not to delve into. She says she felt like she'd never fully belong because she was a convert, but she also writes about all of the wonderful people who took her into their homes, hearts, and lives, holding her as surrogate family. Surely they should have mattered more to her than some snobby girls on campus and some guys who didn't want to date her because half of her family wasn't Jewish! She also says that the status of women in Orthodoxy grew to really bother her, so instead of deciding to leave for a more progressive denomination or to find a liberal Modern Orthodox shul which has such things as women-led prayer groups, she packs up and leaves the religion entirely? I really didn't like the prevailing attitude that set Orthodoxy up as the only valid denomination. Those of us who choose not to be Orthodox find such attitudes extremely offensive and hurtful. Additionally, Ms. Winner was extremely young when she converted. Had she stayed and engaged her doubts and crisis of faith, she might have emerged stronger when she was a little older. Instead she chose not to tell anyone she was having second thoughts after only a couple of years, people who might have been able to help her to regain her faith and find new energy (it's normal for the convert's zeal to wear off, but it doesn't mean it's time to quit the religion). It's kind of hypocritical how she writes about taking such great pains to avoid anyone from her former life, then writes an entire book talking about how she jumped ship. It's clear, from her writing, that she misses a lot about her Orthodox life, like her friends, the food, the holidays (she even has one of those "Christian seders" with some friends of hers, and has a Pentecost equivalent of a laila tikkun, the all-night studying marathon on Shavuot), the community, the books, and the prayers. One later chapter talks about how she had to rebuild her Jewish library some years after she gave almost all of her Jewish books away when she left the fold. I can't help but feel that had she been older than just in her early twenties, she might have had more maturity and foresight to think through all of the consequences of her actions. Like many others, I also question why she chose to write this book while still a young woman. For all anyone knows, she might eventually grow tired of Christianity too and go back to Judaism or convert to a third religion someday. Ultimately, a lot of her actions just struck me as those of someone who's very young, naïve, impulsive, and spiritually promiscuous, bopping from one religion to another without taking much time in between to fix what's wrong in her current spiritual life before doing something so drastic. | ||
 | Girl Meets God : On the Path to a Spiritual Life | |
| "Mixed feelings about this" | 2008-07-17 |
| (3.5 stars) I found this book to be genuinely captivating, insightful, intelligent, and nicely-written. Ms. Winner is obviously extremely intelligent and well-read, and isn't a shabby writer at all. She's also very honest and emotional about her life and religious experiences, even when it could be argued that some of these details aren't relevant (for example, who really needs to know she wears fishnets and doesn't shave her legs?). My issues with the book lie elsewhere. As she goes through the calendar year (mostly) according to Christian holidays and seasons in her newfound Episcopal Church, Ms. Winner weaves a nonlinear narrative of her religious upbringing (she was raised in a Southern Reform shul and Jewish by patrilineal descent), her growing level of observance as she became a young woman, her conversion to Orthodox Judaism to (as she saw it) make her Jewish identity legit in the eyes of everyone, her days as an undergrad at Columbia, the pull she felt towards Christianity only a couple of years after becoming officially Orthodox, her transition to the Episcopal faith while in Cambridge, and how she tries to make peace with her religious past and present without disrespecting either one. This story in itself could have been so much better had she chosen to write more about her second conversion. While there was ample material on her Jewish upbringing, her pull towards Orthodoxy, her first conversion, and the Orthodox life she lived in her late teens and early twenties, I was left wondering why exactly she decided to convert to Christianity, and why she chose Anglicanism/Episcopalianism in particular. Having a strange dream about mermaids and a Jesus who looks like Daniel Day-Lewis, and feeling drawn to the Christian art in a local museum, seem rather silly and shallow reasons for altering one's religious life so radically. Her attachment to her latest religion seems very sincere, but I wanted to know more about what exactly led her to it, why she decided to cross the point of no return. Ms. Winner's reasons for leaving Judaism, the faith she had known her entire life, also seem rather shallow, unless there were some much deeper reasons she chose not to delve into. She says she felt like she'd never fully belong because she was a convert, but she also writes about all of the wonderful people who took her into their homes, hearts, and lives, holding her as surrogate family. Surely they should have mattered more to her than some snobby girls on campus and some guys who didn't want to date her because half of her family wasn't Jewish! She also says that the status of women in Orthodoxy grew to really bother her, so instead of deciding to leave for a more progressive denomination or to find a liberal Modern Orthodox shul which has such things as women-led prayer groups, she packs up and leaves the religion entirely? I really didn't like the prevailing attitude that set Orthodoxy up as the only valid denomination. Those of us who choose not to be Orthodox find such attitudes extremely offensive and hurtful. Additionally, Ms. Winner was extremely young when she converted. Had she stayed and engaged her doubts and crisis of faith, she might have emerged stronger when she was a little older. Instead she chose not to tell anyone she was having second thoughts after only a couple of years, people who might have been able to help her to regain her faith and find new energy (it's normal for the convert's zeal to wear off, but it doesn't mean it's time to quit the religion). It's kind of hypocritical how she writes about taking such great pains to avoid anyone from her former life, then writes an entire book talking about how she jumped ship. It's clear, from her writing, that she misses a lot about her Orthodox life, like her friends, the food, the holidays (she even has one of those "Christian seders" with some friends of hers, and has a Pentecost equivalent of a laila tikkun, the all-night studying marathon on Shavuot), the community, the books, and the prayers. One later chapter talks about how she had to rebuild her Jewish library some years after she gave almost all of her Jewish books away when she left the fold. I can't help but feel that had she been older than just in her early twenties, she might have had more maturity and foresight to think through all of the consequences of her actions. Like many others, I also question why she chose to write this book while still a young woman. For all anyone knows, she might eventually grow tired of Christianity too and go back to Judaism or convert to a third religion someday. Ultimately, a lot of her actions just struck me as those of someone who's very young, naïve, impulsive, and spiritually promiscuous, bopping from one religion to another without taking much time in between to fix what's wrong in her current spiritual life before doing something so drastic. | ||
 | Paul McCartney - Wingspan - An Intimate Portrait | |
| "Severely lacking perspective" | 2008-07-16 |
| While I'm not exactly the biggest fan of most of Paul's solo music (my favorite solo Beatle is George), this supposed documentary could have had the potential to change my opinion of his solo career for the better. An in-depth analysis and critique of the songs, the various members of Wings besides Paul and Linda, and the process of making the albums could have made me look a bit more kindly on his music and not be so inclined to dismiss it as cheesy lightweight meaningless pop, as many of his critics do. That opportunity was wasted and squandered here. This so-called documentary is little more than the story of Paul, Linda, and their family. What material there is on the actual music is disappointingly brief and shallow. We barely learn anything at all about the other members of Wings, and their names are barely even mentioned at all. Why in the world weren't there any other people interviewed for this project, particularly Denny Laine, the only bandmember who was there the entire time? Their perspective would have enhanced the viewer's understanding and appreciation of the music a lot, and made the story not seem so terribly one-sided. This only confirms what just about everyone has known all along, that Wings were little more than a backup band for Paul. Having Paul's daughter Mary interview him is barely a step up from someone interviewing oneself. Was he afraid that a less impartial and fawning source would have asked harder-hitting and more specific questions? I'll admit it was really sweet to see the interactions between father and daughter, but it's just not very professional to have your own child interview you. Naturally, she'll avoid questions that might cast her beloved father or his music in a less than perfect light, because of how close she is to the subject. And I totally call BS on Mary's stunned reaction to being told that Yoko moved her bed into the studio while The Beatles were recording the White Album. We're supposed to believe the child of an actual Beatle never heard such a well-known story ever before in her life? In spite of how the focus is almost entirely on the McCartneys' family life and not the music, and the rather kid-glove treatment of Paul and the late Linda, I did enjoy seeing all of the home movie footage. Whatever I might think about his solo music (and his inclusion of his less-than-musically-gifted wife in the act), it's obvious that Paul provided his kids with a really happy stable loving family life growing up. The footage of a few songs in the bonus material is also nice, as are the clips of videos we see in the actual body of the film. It's just unfortunate that this material couldn't have been assembled by people who weren't so close to the source and who had interviewed other people, not just Paul and using audio clips from Linda. | ||
 | Paul McCartney - Wingspan - An Intimate Portrait | |
| "Severely lacking perspective" | 2008-07-16 |
| While I'm not exactly the biggest fan of most of Paul's solo music (my favorite solo Beatle is George), this supposed documentary could have had the potential to change my opinion of his solo career for the better. An in-depth analysis and critique of the songs, the various members of Wings besides Paul and Linda, and the process of making the albums could have made me look a bit more kindly on his music and not be so inclined to dismiss it as cheesy lightweight meaningless pop, as many of his critics do. That opportunity was wasted and squandered here. This so-called documentary is little more than the story of Paul, Linda, and their family. What material there is on the actual music is disappointingly brief and shallow. We barely learn anything at all about the other members of Wings, and their names are barely even mentioned at all. Why in the world weren't there any other people interviewed for this project, particularly Denny Laine, the only bandmember who was there the entire time? Their perspective would have enhanced the viewer's understanding and appreciation of the music a lot, and made the story not seem so terribly one-sided. This only confirms what just about everyone has known all along, that Wings were little more than a backup band for Paul. Having Paul's daughter Mary interview him is barely a step up from someone interviewing oneself. Was he afraid that a less impartial and fawning source would have asked harder-hitting and more specific questions? I'll admit it was really sweet to see the interactions between father and daughter, but it's just not very professional to have your own child interview you. Naturally, she'll avoid questions that might cast her beloved father or his music in a less than perfect light, because of how close she is to the subject. And I totally call BS on Mary's stunned reaction to being told that Yoko moved her bed into the studio while The Beatles were recording the White Album. We're supposed to believe the child of an actual Beatle never heard such a well-known story ever before in her life? In spite of how the focus is almost entirely on the McCartneys' family life and not the music, and the rather kid-glove treatment of Paul and the late Linda, I did enjoy seeing all of the home movie footage. Whatever I might think about his solo music (and his inclusion of his less-than-musically-gifted wife in the act), it's obvious that Paul provided his kids with a really happy stable loving family life growing up. The footage of a few songs in the bonus material is also nice, as are the clips of videos we see in the actual body of the film. It's just unfortunate that this material couldn't have been assembled by people who weren't so close to the source and who had interviewed other people, not just Paul and using audio clips from Linda. | ||
 | Trembling Before G-d | |
| "Putting faces to a verse" | 2008-05-16 |
| This moving documentary really merits being seen by everyone, no matter what their religion or sexual orientation. While the issue of being both gay and Jewish doesn't seem like a conflict to those in the liberal denominations, it's a much more complex and anguished issue for those who wish to remain true to both parts of their core identity, living a frum life and being gay. It seems like a dire contradiction in terms to devote your life to a religious tradition that essentially denies who you are, but for the brave individuals who agreed to appear in this film (some of them with false names or appearing in silhouette or with blurred faces), being Orthodox and still gay isn't a contradiction at all. For too many people, the issue of Judaism and homosexuality is a cut and dried prohibition, one verse in Leviticus. They don't have any real-life experience with it, or think it doesn't exist in their ultra-frum communities. But this documentary puts faces to that one verse, shows the people who are in very real pain and conflict over this. It's easy to condemn or dismiss something when it only exists in theory, something you've read about, not something you suddenly find yourself dealing with in your own family or community. People like Leah, Malka, Michelle, David, Israel, Mark, and Devorah are real people who have been living this double identity for years, struggling to come to terms with their orientation and how to still be frum in spite of it. I think it's quite refreshing how the rabbis who appear in this film, though some of them are quite Orthodox, are speaking from personal experience in dealing with gay people. While the Orthodox hold to the belief that the Torah is 100% the literal word of Hashem, these rabbis are flexible and compassionate enough, within that very conservative framework, to reinterpret the verse to find some sort of realistic solution to this problem. Many people are killing themselves or suffering from depression because there is no support network for frum gays; it's completely unfair to compare not following this one particular mitzvah to deciding to also ignore mitzvot such as kashrut and keeping Shabbos. Halacha is really not set in stone, and an alternative answer can always be found even with an Orthodox approach to reading the text. It's also surprising how some of these long-bearded rabbis are more progressive and understanding than some secular people. It's unfathomable that anyone, after seeing this film and getting to know these people, could still insist that homosexuality is wrong because it's in the Torah, and that settles that issue. Anyone with a heart would see the pain and frustration in people like Israel, desperate to reunite with his 98 year old dad; Devorah, who is married to a man in spite of being a lesbian; and Mark, who misses the yeshiva world even though he was estranged from it after coming out. One's heart goes out to these people who either have to live double lives or live as openly gay in a world where early heterosexual marriage and large families are considered not only the norm, but the only way to live. Hopefully some halachic solutions will be found for this issue sooner than later, so that the next generation of people like Malka, Michelle, David, and Israel won't have to struggle with being frum gays. The second disc contains a wealth of extras that really enhance the documentary. Among them are an interview with Rabbi Steve Greenberg (whom I was honored to meet when he spoke at my [Conservative] shul in December '06), an interview with director Sandi Simcha Dubowski, a featurette, 'Trembling on the Road,' the trailer, interviews with five of the prominent rabbis featured in the documentary (and while they're quite Orthodox, they also seem compassionate and open-minded, wanting to find a halachic solution to this issue instead of just telling gay people to live celibate lives or pretend to be straight), a deleted scene, a discussion with people involved in Petach Lev, an Israeli group dealing with these issues, footage of an arcane Medieval ceremony to atone for "sexual sins," and so much more. | ||
 | Trembling Before G-d | |
| "Putting faces to a verse" | 2008-05-16 |
| This moving documentary really merits being seen by everyone, no matter what their religion or sexual orientation. While the issue of being both gay and Jewish doesn't seem like a conflict to those in the liberal denominations, it's a much more complex and anguished issue for those who wish to remain true to both parts of their core identity, living a frum life and being gay. It seems like a dire contradiction in terms to devote your life to a religious tradition that essentially denies who you are, but for the brave individuals who agreed to appear in this film (some of them with false names or appearing in silhouette or with blurred faces), being Orthodox and still gay isn't a contradiction at all. For too many people, the issue of Judaism and homosexuality is a cut and dried prohibition, one verse in Leviticus. They don't have any real-life experience with it, or think it doesn't exist in their ultra-frum communities. But this documentary puts faces to that one verse, shows the people who are in very real pain and conflict over this. It's easy to condemn or dismiss something when it only exists in theory, something you've read about, not something you suddenly find yourself dealing with in your own family or community. People like Leah, Malka, Michelle, David, Israel, Mark, and Devorah are real people who have been living this double identity for years, struggling to come to terms with their orientation and how to still be frum in spite of it. I think it's quite refreshing how the rabbis who appear in this film, though some of them are quite Orthodox, are speaking from personal experience in dealing with gay people. While the Orthodox hold to the belief that the Torah is 100% the literal word of Hashem, these rabbis are flexible and compassionate enough, within that very conservative framework, to reinterpret the verse to find some sort of realistic solution to this problem. Many people are killing themselves or suffering from depression because there is no support network for frum gays; it's completely unfair to compare not following this one particular mitzvah to deciding to also ignore mitzvot such as kashrut and keeping Shabbos. Halacha is really not set in stone, and an alternative answer can always be found even with an Orthodox approach to reading the text. It's also surprising how some of these long-bearded rabbis are more progressive and understanding than some secular people. It's unfathomable that anyone, after seeing this film and getting to know these people, could still insist that homosexuality is wrong because it's in the Torah, and that settles that issue. Anyone with a heart would see the pain and frustration in people like Israel, desperate to reunite with his 98 year old dad; Devorah, who is married to a man in spite of being a lesbian; and Mark, who misses the yeshiva world even though he was estranged from it after coming out. One's heart goes out to these people who either have to live double lives or live as openly gay in a world where early heterosexual marriage and large families are considered not only the norm, but the only way to live. Hopefully some halachic solutions will be found for this issue sooner than later, so that the next generation of people like Malka, Michelle, David, and Israel won't have to struggle with being frum gays. The second disc contains a wealth of extras that really enhance the documentary. Among them are an interview with Rabbi Steve Greenberg (whom I was honored to meet when he spoke at my [Conservative] shul in December '06), an interview with director Sandi Simcha Dubowski, a featurette, 'Trembling on the Road,' the trailer, interviews with five of the prominent rabbis featured in the documentary (and while they're quite Orthodox, they also seem compassionate and open-minded, wanting to find a halachic solution to this issue instead of just telling gay people to live celibate lives or pretend to be straight), a deleted scene, a discussion with people involved in Petach Lev, an Israeli group dealing with these issues, footage of an arcane Medieval ceremony to atone for "sexual sins," and so much more. | ||
 | Nomads of the North / The Shock | |
| "Lon finally gets the girl" | 2008-05-04 |
| Of the two films on this disc, I prefer 1923's 'The Shock.' Like in many of his other films, Lon Chaney also plays a villain, though uncharacteristically, there's a surprisingly quick metamorphosis from hardened criminal to reformed good guy. He always played his characters with such convincing heart and soul, making even criminals and villains seem multi-faceted, with a softer and more human side to them deep down. I think this film would have worked just as well had Lon played just that type of character instead of having the wheelchair-bound Wilse Dilling suddenly transformed into a nice guy. His criminal past won't leave him behind, however, and the woman he'd been answering to, Queen Ann, is still determined to inflict revenge on a man whose daughter Wilse has developed feelings for. He's horrified when the plot ends up injuring the wrong person, the young lady, but is determined to stay in town and prove to everyone that he's changed for the better, even as Queen Ann continues to try pulling his strings. It culminates in a rather deus ex machina development, followed by a highly unusual (though also open-ended) ending for a Chaney film, where he actually appears he might walk off with the object of his affections instead of losing her to another man. 'Nomads of the North' (1920) seems like a typical feature of the late Teens/very early Twenties, and here there's no open-endedness. Lon's character, Raoul, has the woman all along, which is even more unusual. (As as often as I've watched a Chaney film and wished for once that he'd win the woman he's pining for, I must say that it seems kind of odd, even unnatural, to actually see him in a romantic role, let alone as the hero.) This film, an interesting love triangle and wilderness adventure story, probably would have been better had Lon played the villain, Duncan. At least the outdoor scenes are good, and as an animal-lover I enjoyed seeing the cute animals Raoul and his wife Nanette keep as pets. It's definitely not one of Lon's pre-stardom films I'd most highly recommend. | ||
 | Way Down East | |
| "An emotional tour de force" | 2008-05-02 |
| As a number of other reviewers have already provided the plot synopsis, I'll only focus on my reaction to the film. I really think this film is far and away my favorite Griffith feature; although this one is extremely long, as are most of his other features, I was never bored, and didn't feel as though I were being hit over the head with some preachy moral lecture. The opening intertitles are rather heavy-handed, but thankfully the entire rest of the film just tells the story, with not much emotional manipulation. It also gets right down to the action, instead of taking awhile to set up characters and storylines. The viewer is immediately drawn into the story and the characters. Though it's set in early 20th century New England, the essential story and theme seem timeless instead of dated. While the sexual double standard isn't as rigid as it used to be, it does still exist, and one could even imagine such a story with different particulars, a story of an innocent young lady tricked by someone she loved and trusted, forced to hide her past, and then making a new life for herself and seeking redemption, proving to the people around her that she's a different person and that she was an innocent victim, not someone to be harshly judged. I must say that, in spite of my own old-fashioned personal beliefs on the subject, watching this film made me so, so, SO glad that I live in a time and place where it's no longer considered sinful, shameful, shocking, and scandalous for an unmarried woman to have a baby. It makes me so grateful for how far we've come since the early 20th century, no longer judging the woman as the "guilty" party, while ignoring the man's role in her having had a baby, ruining the reputations of lovely girls and women who happened to have this happen to them (for whatever reason, and as in the case of Anna Moore, because she thought she was married), feeling that a child born to an unmarried mother "had no name." In spite of the heavy topic, though, the story just does its job and develops, without heavy-handed editorialising intertitles or overwrought dramatics. The message is conveyed through the power of the story. And so many decades later, the penultimate scene, David's pursuit of Anna across the ice floes, is still as powerful as ever. My heart was in my throat the entire time, not knowing what the outcome would be. All of the acting is wonderful, in particular Lillian Gish as the lead character. She was such a consummate professional, a true acting goddess, and willing to put so much into her roles, as in this film, where she suffered some permanent nerve damage to her hand from it having been submerged in that icy water for so long. I felt cold just from watching that harrowing penultimate scene. Richard Barthelmess as David Bartlett is also magnificent. I wish more of his films were commercially available; he was so talented and handsome! In my opinion, the only things the film could have done without were the heavy-handed opening intertitles and a couple of superfluous scenes here and there, esp. the attempts at comedy. This is such a wonderful film that it wouldn't have suffered at all from having some of the fat trimmed. | ||
 | The Cook and Other Treasures | |
| "True treasures" | 2008-04-30 |
| Milestone always puts so much love and care into their silent DVDs, and this one is no exception. 'The Cook,' the one missing entry in the Keaton-Arbuckle series, was considered lost for decades, along with the other Arbuckle short presented here, 'A Reckless Romeo.' It's such a miracle they were found and restored; while it's always exciting when a lost silent resurfaces decades later, sometimes it seems that more attention is paid to long-lost features instead of shorts like these. Unfortunately, as is the case with many silents that were lost and found, this version of 'The Cook' is incomplete. There are some sections which are still missing, most regrettably the ending sequence. The viewer has three versions from which to choose--the restored as-complete-as-possible version with music, the Dutch version, and the Norwegian version, the latter two of which this restoration was primarily cobbled together from. These films, though, don't have any music (which is always a detriment when watching a silent, which relies so much on the right type of music to evoke the mood), and the Dutch version doesn't have any intertitles. Along with the two (wonderfully funny) Arbuckle shorts, there's also a Harold Lloyd short, 'Number, Please?' It seems kind of wasteful for the disc to only have three shorts on it, and for the Lloyd short to have been previously released on 'The Harold Lloyd Slapstick Symposium' (and by now the Lloyd boxed set as well). Why do so many of these DVDs of silent shorts have this overlap, making the consumer get duplicate copies of shorts s/he already owns? Rounding out the disc is a 23-page press kit, which has a lot of great information on the comedians featured, the discovery of the Arbuckle shorts, the restoration process, the institutions which we have to thank for bringing us these long-lost treasures, and a fascinating essay entitled "A Guide to Amusement and Incubation in The Cook and A Reckless Romeo." I only wish there had been more shorts included. | ||
 | The Cook and Other Treasures | |
| "True treasures" | 2008-04-30 |
| Milestone always puts so much love and care into their silent DVDs, and this one is no exception. 'The Cook,' the one missing entry in the Keaton-Arbuckle series, was considered lost for decades, along with the other Arbuckle short presented here, 'A Reckless Romeo.' It's such a miracle they were found and restored; while it's always exciting when a lost silent resurfaces decades later, sometimes it seems that more attention is paid to long-lost features instead of shorts like these. Unfortunately, as is the case with many silents that were lost and found, this version of 'The Cook' is incomplete. There are some sections which are still missing, most regrettably the ending sequence. The viewer has three versions from which to choose--the restored as-complete-as-possible version with music, the Dutch version, and the Norwegian version, the latter two of which this restoration was primarily cobbled together from. These films, though, don't have any music (which is always a detriment when watching a silent, which relies so much on the right type of music to evoke the mood), and the Dutch version doesn't have any intertitles. Along with the two (wonderfully funny) Arbuckle shorts, there's also a Harold Lloyd short, 'Number, Please?' It seems kind of wasteful for the disc to only have three shorts on it, and for the Lloyd short to have been previously released on 'The Harold Lloyd Slapstick Symposium' (and by now the Lloyd boxed set as well). Why do so many of these DVDs of silent shorts have this overlap, making the consumer get duplicate copies of shorts s/he already owns? Rounding out the disc is a 23-page press kit, which has a lot of great information on the comedians featured, the discovery of the Arbuckle shorts, the restoration process, the institutions which we have to thank for bringing us these long-lost treasures, and a fascinating essay entitled "A Guide to Amusement and Incubation in The Cook and A Reckless Romeo." I only wish there had been more shorts included. | ||
 | The Penalty | |
| "Classic vintage macabre" | 2008-04-16 |
| Though this film was made a few years before Lon Chaney became a huge star, when he was still known primarily as a very good character actor, it easily seems like his best surviving pre-stardom film. In spite of his stardom still being a little bit away, he was given the lead role, and did such a wonderful job with it. I think his performance as the villainous double amputee Blizzard (what a great character name!) ranks up there as being just as compelling and great as his performance in a film like 'The Phantom of the Opera,' 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame,' or 'Tell It to the Marines.' (It's really amazing to think about the physical pain he put himself through to play a double amputee, in an era long before CGI, sacrificing so much for the sake of his craft.) As in all of his films, though he's playing a horrible villain, the type of person you'd ordinarily be afraid of, avoid, or make fun of, he brings depth and sensitivity to the role. Even though Blizzard is a very wicked man, he's not totally inhuman, and does display more human emotions a couple of times. Underneath the exterior of the tough unbending criminal mastermind, there does exist the heart of someone who isn't completely evil. He's also a lot more interesting than just about all of the other characters, because of this depth and complexity. After all, when was Lon not great? As a young boy, Blizzard's legs were unnecessarily amputated following a traffic accident, and when he was coming out of the operation, he overheard the doctor and his young assistant arguing about how this was an unnecessary operation. Twenty-seven years later, he's an evil criminal overlord on San Francisco's Barbary Coast, obsessed not only with building his criminal empire and taking control of the entire city but also with finally getting revenge on the doctor who ruined his life. He gets his chance when he sees an advertisement in the paper (under the terribly old-fashioned "Male Help Wanted" section of the help wanted ads) for a model to sit for a sculpture depicting Satan. The young sculptor, Barbara, is none other than the doctor's daughter. Blizzard's plans for revenge soon come to include Barbara's boyfriend Wilmot, who is rather old-school and wants Barbara to give up her career as an artist to marry him and have a family. While Blizzard is plotting to seduce Barbara and get her father to cut off Wilmot's legs so they can be grafted onto him, all while still hatching an elaborate plot to take over the city, he's also falling for Rose, a woman who was originally hired to investigate his evil plans. Because Blizzard isn't totally evil, Rose comes to develop feelings for him as well, and starts having second thoughts about ratting on him. All of this makes for a great vintage macabre film, complete with a very creepy atmospheric soundtrack. It starts off well and just gets even better and better, more and more intense and dramatic, as it goes along. Unfortunately, there's an incredibly ridiculous and implausible plot twist at the end (which was foreshadowed in the beginning of the film), which probably seemed silly even by 1920 standards. It leads to what I consider a disappointing ending, but everything that comes prior to the final reel is so wonderful that the lame ending doesn't cancel it out. Bonus features are plentiful and include trailers, the surviving footage of the 1919 film 'The Miracle Man,' a photo gallery, information on the novel on which the film was based (and which helps to clear up some confusions and questions the viewer might have, like why those women are making all of those hats), the 1914 short 'By the Sun's Rays,' and an essay by Chaney biographer Michael Blake, who also provides a short video tour of Lon's makeup case and the costume he used in this film. | ||
 | The Penalty | |
| "Classic vintage macabre" | 2008-04-16 |
| Though this film was made a few years before Lon Chaney became a huge star, when he was still known primarily as a very good character actor, it easily seems like his best surviving pre-stardom film. In spite of his stardom still being a little bit away, he was given the lead role, and did such a wonderful job with it. I think his performance as the villainous double amputee Blizzard (what a great character name!) ranks up there as being just as compelling and great as his performance in a film like 'The Phantom of the Opera,' 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame,' or 'Tell It to the Marines.' (It's really amazing to think about the physical pain he put himself through to play a double amputee, in an era long before CGI, sacrificing so much for the sake of his craft.) As in all of his films, though he's playing a horrible villain, the type of person you'd ordinarily be afraid of, avoid, or make fun of, he brings depth and sensitivity to the role. Even though Blizzard is a very wicked man, he's not totally inhuman, and does display more human emotions a couple of times. Underneath the exterior of the tough unbending criminal mastermind, there does exist the heart of someone who isn't completely evil. He's also a lot more interesting than just about all of the other characters, because of this depth and complexity. After all, when was Lon not great? As a young boy, Blizzard's legs were unnecessarily amputated following a traffic accident, and when he was coming out of the operation, he overheard the doctor and his young assistant arguing about how this was an unnecessary operation. Twenty-seven years later, he's an evil criminal overlord on San Francisco's Barbary Coast, obsessed not only with building his criminal empire and taking control of the entire city but also with finally getting revenge on the doctor who ruined his life. He gets his chance when he sees an advertisement in the paper (under the terribly old-fashioned "Male Help Wanted" section of the help wanted ads) for a model to sit for a sculpture depicting Satan. The young sculptor, Barbara, is none other than the doctor's daughter. Blizzard's plans for revenge soon come to include Barbara's boyfriend Wilmot, who is rather old-school and wants Barbara to give up her career as an artist to marry him and have a family. While Blizzard is plotting to seduce Barbara and get her father to cut off Wilmot's legs so they can be grafted onto him, all while still hatching an elaborate plot to take over the city, he's also falling for Rose, a woman who was originally hired to investigate his evil plans. Because Blizzard isn't totally evil, Rose comes to develop feelings for him as well, and starts having second thoughts about ratting on him. All of this makes for a great vintage macabre film, complete with a very creepy atmospheric soundtrack. It starts off well and just gets even better and better, more and more intense and dramatic, as it goes along. Unfortunately, there's an incredibly ridiculous and implausible plot twist at the end (which was foreshadowed in the beginning of the film), which probably seemed silly even by 1920 standards. It leads to what I consider a disappointing ending, but everything that comes prior to the final reel is so wonderful that the lame ending doesn't cancel it out. Bonus features are plentiful and include trailers, the surviving footage of the 1919 film 'The Miracle Man,' a photo gallery, information on the novel on which the film was based (and which helps to clear up some confusions and questions the viewer might have, like why those women are making all of those hats), the 1914 short 'By the Sun's Rays,' and an essay by Chaney biographer Michael Blake, who also provides a short video tour of Lon's makeup case and the costume he used in this film. | ||
 | Tol'able David | |
| "Charming story in spite of some flaws" | 2008-03-12 |
| This 1921 coming-of-age melodrama is set in a provincial small town in West Virginia, home of the Kinemons and the neighboring family the Hatburns. The hero of the story, David Kinemon (Richard Barthelmess), knows he's no longer a little boy, yet no one around him, not even his love interest, Esther Hatburn, seems to understand that. No matter what he says or does to try to prove that he's becoming a man, growing up, becoming more mature, they still think of him and treat him as a kid. Even when his older brother Allen's wife Rose gives birth to a son, making David no longer the family baby, his mother still insists that he'll always be her baby. His one big ambition, to drive the mail wagon, is continually denied because his father and brother don't think he's old or responsible enough yet to do it.
Trouble invades this small farming town when some cousins of Grandfather Hatburn show up and make themselves at home on the Hatburn farm to avoid the police looking for them. Grandfather Hatburn hates the idea of these three escaped felons living in his house and acting like they own the place, as does Esther, but they're afraid of what might happen if they tried to throw them out or contacted the authorities. The Hatburn cousins make trouble for the other people in town too, particularly the Kinemons. Things get so bad that David's family has to leave town. Finally, he's given a chance to prove himself by driving the mail wagon, but that task soon turns into a much more serious contest of courage and maturity when he finds himself dealing with the evil Hatburn cousins again. Overall, I found this a charming coming-of-age film, although I don't have any nostalgic or sentimental feelings towards smalltown provincial America of yore. The core theme, of a young man proving himself a capable mature brave adult, is the most important thing, and not the particular time and place where the story is set. The melodrama can also be a bit over the top (particularly a certain sequence of events which happen one after the other), although I must admit that prior to this pivotal dramatic turning-point, I found the film a bit slow-moving, spending so much time establishing the characters and setting instead of just geting down to the action. I was also bothered by how much violence there is, so much bloodlust, although at least by today's standards, the violence seems rather mild, and it fits in with the plot instead of characters just doing mean violent things to one another for their own sake. Looking past some of these flaws, it is a surprisingly charming and moving story that anyone could relate to. | ||
 | Trapped By Television | |
| "Okay for a low-budget film" | 2008-03-12 |
| I was interested in seeing this film because it was directed by Del Lord, a frequent Three Stooges director. Since this film too was shot at Columbia Pictures, it's not exactly a big-budget affair (although at least Columbia wasn't the most poverty-row studio out there in this era). The television invented by Fred Dennis does look pretty impressive for the era, but apart from the technological props, the sets, costumes, and props seem rather obviously low-budget. Even Bobby Blake's fur coat looks cheap! Rocky O'Neil is a bill collector who meets and quickly becomes buddies with inventor Fred Dennis when called upon to wrest some money from him. It turns out that Fred owes money not only to the bill collectors, but also to his landlady. He's so in debt because of his obsession with building a superior type of television set. Being somewhat of an amateur expert on antique televisions, I think Fred's television is meant to be one of the electronic sets in development at this point in time (1936) and not the older mechanical scanning-disc sets that were in use in the late Twenties and early Thirties. (Not a lot of people today know that television, while obviously not as ubiquitous as it is today, was a lot more common back then than we've been led to believe.) Rocky is sold on Fred's invention, and to get financial backing ends up associating with Bobby Blake, another frustrated would-be inventor, and her assistant/roommate Mae Collins. Sprinkle in a couple of bad guys looking to sabotage the invention and a stubborn businessman who feels he's been let down by Bobby's promises of success one too many times, and you about have the entire plot. Since the film is barely over an hour, there isn't much time for the storyline to become really deep or complex, nor for the audience to really get emotionally involved with the characters. And apart from a couple of action scenes, like the big fight scene toward the end, it's kind of bland. It probably would have worked better as a comedy, but its direction is bogged down by trying to make it into more of a drama. It's an okay B-film, and interesting for covering the subject of television before it was considered really mainstream, but not what I'd consider an essential film from this era. | ||
 | Frogs | |
| "Amphibians take center stage" | 2008-02-10 |
| This book, the first of what would be three collaborations between writer David Badger and photographer John Netherton, puts a well-deserved spotlight on the amazing frogs and toads of the world. Although lizards are my own favorite herps, I also really like frogs and toads. And since they're the most visible and well-known of the amphibian part of the herp world, it seems like they're most people's favorite amphibians by default. The photographs in the book are so beautiful, going beyond just another book of frog and toad photos. The animals are captured at various angles, in various lighting, in various locales, and even struggling against nature, as in the picture of the poor greenhouse frog trying to extricate itself from a Venus flytrap. Mr. Badger discusses subjects such as reproduction, diet, the need to save amphibian populations, the potential medical breakthroughs they're hiding in their bodies (a number of frogs and toads secrete a veritable medicine chest), frog photography, humanity's relationship to the frog, the growing popularity of the frog in recent years, hearing, vocalisation, hibernation, and locomotion. He also provides short but sweet information on the various species profiled, along with maps showing where they live.
Among the frogs and toads photographed are the dart-poison frog, cane toad, glass large-eyed frog, White's tree frog, Chinese microhylid, pygmy banana frog, Pacman frog (the Argentine horned frog), red-eyed tree frog, barking tree frog, pickerel frog, Fowler's toad, Oriental fire-bellied toad, Eastern spadefoot toad, Surinam toad (one of the most interesting specimens in the book, to say the least), harlequin frog, and red-banded crevice creeper. Most of the frogs and toads I had been familiar with previously were the domesticated ones I'd read about in books on pet herps, so learning about and seeing pictures of all of these non-pet species was a real treat. A lot of times each picture seemed to be better and cuter than the last. It's a perfect book for someone who's already interested in herps, or someone who just wants a better understanding and appreciation of frogs and toads. | ||
 | Frogs | |
| "Amphibians take center stage" | 2008-02-10 |
| This book, the first of what would be three collaborations between writer David Badger and photographer John Netherton, puts a well-deserved spotlight on the amazing frogs and toads of the world. Although lizards are my own favorite herps, I also really like frogs and toads. And since they're the most visible and well-known of the amphibian part of the herp world, it seems like they're most people's favorite amphibians by default. The photographs in the book are so beautiful, going beyond just another book of frog and toad photos. The animals are captured at various angles, in various lighting, in various locales, and even struggling against nature, as in the picture of the poor greenhouse frog trying to extricate itself from a Venus flytrap. Mr. Badger discusses subjects such as reproduction, diet, the need to save amphibian populations, the potential medical breakthroughs they're hiding in their bodies (a number of frogs and toads secrete a veritable medicine chest), frog photography, humanity's relationship to the frog, the growing popularity of the frog in recent years, hearing, vocalisation, hibernation, and locomotion. He also provides short but sweet information on the various species profiled, along with maps showing where they live. Among the frogs and toads photographed are the dart-poison frog, cane toad, glass large-eyed frog, White's tree frog, Chinese microhylid, pygmy banana frog, Pacman frog (the Argentine horned frog), red-eyed tree frog, barking tree frog, pickerel frog, Fowler's toad, Oriental fire-bellied toad, Eastern spadefoot toad, Surinam toad (one of the most interesting specimens in the book, to say the least), harlequin frog, and red-banded crevice creeper. Most of the frogs and toads I had been familiar with previously were the domesticated ones I'd read about in books on pet herps, so learning about and seeing pictures of all of these non-pet species was a real treat. A lot of times each picture seemed to be better and cuter than the last. It's a perfect book for someone who's already interested in herps, or someone who just wants a better understanding and appreciation of frogs and toads. | ||
 | America | |
| "Colonial costume drama" | 2008-02-08 |
| Silent costume drama, whichever era and location it's set in, isn't the easiest silent genre to get into. There are usually a lot of different characters to keep track of, the plot tends to take awhile to really be set up, and there are a lot of long intertitles setting all of the characters and situations up. This film in particular, because of those aspects, did seem a bit slow-going to me at first, and took awhile before I really got interested in it. Before the story really got going in earnest, there seemed to be more telling than showing, thanks to all of those lengthy intertitles explaining who a character was or what a certain historical development was all about. A lot of these silents that have so many long intertitles, dialogue or just explanatory, seem like they would have worked better as sound films.
The story is set during the American Revolution, and features at the forefront a Loyalist family, the Montagues, whose lives are turned upside-down when all of this chaos and violence erupts. The Montague daughter, Nancy (Carol Dempster), also has the complication of being romantically pursued by Nathan Holden (Neil Hamilton), who not only is fighting on the other side but who is also much, much below her in station and therefore is risking a lot by even speaking to such a high-class lady. Nancy's father already dislikes Nathan because he's fighting against the King and was caught at Nancy's window at night, but hates him even more when he is wounded by a shot from Nathan's rifle. Another man in the crowd was really the one who pulled the trigger, but Nancy and her father don't want to believe this at first, so now Nancy, who was warming up to Nathan's attentions, shuns him as well. The man of his choice for Nancy becomes the Loyalist Capt. Walter Butler (Lionel Barrymore), a total and complete villain who goes on one murderous rampage and debauch after another. Nathan, however, swore when he first saw Nancy that he would never forget her and would always love her, and continues to pursue her throughout the Revolution, hoping to convince her and her father that he was not the one who pulled the trigger and that he, and not Capt. Butler, is the right husband for Nancy. Though there are a number of slow spots in the film (particularly the historical expository sections, when there isn't much action or camera movement), there are quite a few faster-moving sections, among them some great battle scenes. Lionel Barrymore also plays the villainous Capt. Butler to the hilt, making him the most interesting character by far. And the overall story is so interesting that I could kind of put aside my disbelief at the implausible subplot of the love story. I don't believe in love at first sight, and a romance, let alone marriage, between two different social classes just wasn't something that was even considered in that era, but at least this less than believable "love story" doesn't dominate the entire film. I didn't extraordinarily mind that the Native Americans were shown as villains fighting on Capt. Butler's side, since such a thing wouldn't have been unheard of in history, but I was very offended at how the intertitles kept referring to them as "savages" instead of at least using the older term "Indian" to identity them. There were also a bunch of the typical urban legends about the American Revolution shown as fact, such as Paul Revere's ride. In real life he was captured by those British Regulars during his ride and had to be replaced by another rider named Israel Bissel. The scene of Gen. Washington praying in the woods in the winter is also pure myth, and as serious students of American history should know, the Declaration of Independence was actually signed August second, and the final signature wasn't even affixed till 18 January 1777. The only noteworthy thing that happened on 4 July 1776 was the approval of the wording of the document. And as a historian, I didn't appreciate the black and white view of the Revolution and its causes. Real history is rarely so simplistic and clear-cut. The causes of the American rebellion were more complex than generations of students have been led to believe by myth-ridden textbooks, and the British, King George III among them, were not these evil unreasonable villains. Still, at least those bits, like the silly love story, didn't dominate the entire film. This isn't an ideal first silent, but it isn't one of the worst choices either. It's also of obvious interest to those who like historical epics, even if not all of the facts are right and some urban legends are repeated as truth. | ||
 | Sally of the Sawdust | |
| "Enjoyable light comedy" | 2008-02-08 |
| I thought it would be a bit hard to really get into this film, since I'm not too familiar with the silent work of W.C. Fields. Since he really didn't come into his own until the sound era, it's hard to see him deprived of that essential element in his comedy, his voice. However, this film does seem to be regarded as one of his better silents, and he still manages to be quite entertaining and funny even without being able to use his voice or rely upon other noises. It's also an interesting change of pace to see him in a fatherly role, given his legendary dislike of children (at least on-camera), even if Sally is a young woman and not exactly a true child for the majority of the film.
Judge and Mrs. Foster have a beloved only child, but when she announces her intentions to marry a circus man, her father throws her out of the house and tells her to never come back. Several years later, we see her in the circus on her deathbed, her husband having already died. She entrusts the care of her daughter Sally to Prof. Eustace McGargle, and he takes this trust very seriously. Sally is raised knowing him as both her father and mother, and grows up a free spirit as the circus moves from town to town. The two are very devoted to one another, even when they fall on hard luck and get in trouble with the law. But when the two happen to pass through the town where the Fosters still live, they have more to worry about than the cops being after them for fixing a card game. Judge Foster hates circus folk and entertainers, and in particular has disliked Sally from the very first time he saw her, so McGargle resolves to not tell either of them the true secret of her birth. Sally has however made an impression on Mrs. Foster and a wealthy young man, Peyton Lennox, and they don't appreciate the efforts of Judge Foster and Mr. Lennox to run her out of town and put her on trial for her role in a crooked card game. (It does seem odd that the courtroom would be so filled for such a minor trial, and that Sally should be at risk for being sent to a home for "wayward girls" over that, but a little suspension of disbelief is necessary sometimes to really get into a film.) During Sally's trial, McGargle (who still holds the ultimate trump card, the secret of her birth) is on the run from some crooks, but Sally insists he's going to come through for her as usual. Overall, it's a fun cute film, even if some of the scenes are a bit repetitive, implausible, and overly melodramatic. It's a bit long for a comedy, so some of the less-essential scenes could have been cut out without the whole product suffering. And I already don't believe in love at first sight, so I found the "romance" between Sally and Peyton rather unbelievable, even moreso than most "love at first sight" stories. I didn't see any real mutual attraction between them, more like some playboy lusting after this new girl and pretty much forcing his affections and attentions on her until she gives in. Much more believable is the father-daughter relationship between Sally and McGargle. Carol Dempster was rather lacking in her acting skills, but she does an adequate job with the material. It's not like she has a demanding role here that would have required more finesse and skill. | ||
 | Sally of the Sawdust | |
| "Enjoyable light comedy" | 2008-02-08 |
| I thought it would be a bit hard to really get into this film, since I'm not too familiar with the silent work of W.C. Fields. Since he really didn't come into his own until the sound era, it's hard to see him deprived of that essential element in his comedy, his voice. However, this film does seem to be regarded as one of his better silents, and he still manages to be quite entertaining and funny even without being able to use his voice or rely upon other noises. It's also an interesting change of pace to see him in a fatherly role, given his legendary dislike of children (at least on-camera), even if Sally is a young woman and not exactly a true child for the majority of the film.
Judge and Mrs. Foster have a beloved only child, but when she announces her intentions to marry a circus man, her father throws her out of the house and tells her to never come back. Several years later, we see her in the circus on her deathbed, her husband having already died. She entrusts the care of her daughter Sally to Prof. Eustace McGargle, and he takes this trust very seriously. Sally is raised knowing him as both her father and mother, and grows up a free spirit as the circus moves from town to town. The two are very devoted to one another, even when they fall on hard luck and get in trouble with the law. But when the two happen to pass through the town where the Fosters still live, they have more to worry about than the cops being after them for fixing a card game. Judge Foster hates circus folk and entertainers, and in particular has disliked Sally from the very first time he saw her, so McGargle resolves to not tell either of them the true secret of her birth. Sally has however made an impression on Mrs. Foster and a wealthy young man, Peyton Lennox, and they don't appreciate the efforts of Judge Foster and Mr. Lennox to run her out of town and put her on trial for her role in a crooked card game. (It does seem odd that the courtroom would be so filled for such a minor trial, and that Sally should be at risk for being sent to a home for "wayward girls" over that, but a little suspension of disbelief is necessary sometimes to really get into a film.) During Sally's trial, McGargle (who still holds the ultimate trump card, the secret of her birth) is on the run from some crooks, but Sally insists he's going to come through for her as usual. Overall, it's a fun cute film, even if some of the scenes are a bit repetitive, implausible, and overly melodramatic. It's a bit long for a comedy, so some of the less-essential scenes could have been cut out without the whole product suffering. And I already don't believe in love at first sight, so I found the "romance" between Sally and Peyton rather unbelievable, even moreso than most "love at first sight" stories. I didn't see any real mutual attraction between them, more like some playboy lusting after this new girl and pretty much forcing his affections and attentions on her until she gives in. Much more believable is the father-daughter relationship between Sally and McGargle. Carol Dempster was rather lacking in her acting skills, but she does an adequate job with the material. It's not like she has a demanding role here that would have required more finesse and skill. | ||
 | D.W. Griffith - Years of Discovery 1909-1913 | |
| "A treasure trove" | 2008-02-07 |
| Though there is a bit of overlap between this set and the other two-volume set of Biograph shorts, this set does contain six shorts that the other set doesn't. This set also has a big bonus in the audio commentary by Russell Merritt, which is very informative and answers and explains a lot of things. The only downside to the commentary is that some of the films only have commentary for the first few minutes before Mr. Merritt says something along the lines of "See you in [the next short]" or "I'll let you enjoy the rest of the film." A couple of shorts on the first disc are like this, but on the second disc, only the first short, 'The New York Hat,' gets a full-length commentary. I would have appreciated longer commentaries on films such as 'The Mothering Heart' and 'The Battle at Elderbush Gulch,' since their length and complexity are just begging for more historical background and explanatory comments, to add to one's appreciation and understanding of them.
After becoming familiar with his Biograph shorts, I can now say that I far prefer Griffith's shorts to most of his features. The issues I have with him either disappear or are minimised when he's only telling a story in a couple of reels and has to pack all of the character development, plot, and editorial commentary into a set time frame. A number of these early shorts even appear to have Socialist sympathies, what with depicting the plight of the poor and working-class and how they're exploited and treated by the ruling class, such as 'A Corner in Wheat,' 'What Shall We Do with Our Old?,' and 'One Is Business, the Other Crime.' That earns him some major points with me, these films with really progressive social justice issues. There's so much diversity in these shorts--Westerns, gangster films, social commentaries, adaptations of literature, and modern stories. They also feature many talented actors, among them people who became big-name stars, such as Mary Pickford, Lionel Barrymore, and Lillian Gish. Film-making in the late Aughts and early Teens was a very exciting time, with so much diversity and the medium constantly undergoing so much evolution, and these shorts help to demonstrate just what was so wonderful about early film. | ||
 | The Who - Who's Missing | |
| "Great rarities" | 2008-01-27 |
| While not exactly an essential album for new or casual fans, not to mention how this is a first-generation CD, it is very worthwhile for serious fans. There are some very good rarities here, and even though most of them have since been issued on other formats, a couple of them are still only available here. Among the only-to-be-found-here rarities are the original version of "I'm a Boy" (one of my favorite singles of theirs), "When I Was a Boy" (my absolute favorite of John's songs!), the full-length live version of "Bargain" from 1972 (also available on the boxed set, but inexplicably cut a bit short), and "Here for More," a 1970 song that is unusual in that not only did Roger write it, but he also wrote it all by himself. The relative few times he has written songs, it's almost always been done with a co-writer. In addition to all of the interesting rarities, the cover picture is also one of their more interesting ones. It's well worth searching out for the fan who is ready to branch out beyond their studio albums and get into lesser-known tracks. One of the many things I love about The Who is that even their leftovers and rarities are (usually) great. These songs are far from bottom-of-the-barrel rejects that only a super-hardcore fan would want to listen to. They're definitely nowhere near the league of the absolute worst Who song I've ever heard, that beyond-horrible alternate version of "The Real Me" on the boxed set. | ||
![Culture Club - Kissing To Be Clever [Remaster]](product_images/175000/175535_thumb.jpg) | Culture Club - Kissing To Be Clever [Remaster] | |
| "Spotty is right" | 2008-01-25 |
| I would say that I can't fathom why so many people have given this rather spotty album such glowing 5-star reviews, but then again, a lot of people seem to have a tendency to judge things based on nostalgia and sentimentality from their childhood or teen years instead of looking at a product honestly, without the rose-colored glasses. I myself have great sentimentality for Eighties music, but this album doesn't make me feel nostalgic and sentimental at all. The album doesn't stand up all that well over time, unlike 'Colour by Numbers,' which I absolutely love. Too many of the songs on KTBC just strike me as unmemorable and not very distinct from one another. The songs on a truly classic album shouldn't be sounding so similar. There are even three songs in a row with incredibly similar titles, "White Boy," "Boy, Boy (I'm the Boy)," and "White Boys Can't Control It." (At least they were all in a row on the original release; I don't know why the CD reissue scrambled the order of all of the tracks!)
In my opinion, the only songs on this album that really stand up to multiple listens and have held up well over time are the three hits, "Time (Clock of the Heart)," "Do You Really Want to Hurt Me?," and "I'll Tumble 4 Ya." The lattermost might be rather trite lyrically, but at least it's catchy, and is more distinct and memorable than most of the rest of the songs on this album. A couple of other songs aren't that bad, like "I'm Afraid of Me" and "White Boys Can't Control It," but overall they just don't make up what I would consider a timeless classic great album. Although if these tracks were played separately at an Eighties-themed dance party, instead of all in a row, they might not seem so similar and underdeveloped. | ||
![The Who - My Generation [Deluxe Edition]](product_images/1418000/1418970_thumb.jpg) | The Who - My Generation [Deluxe Edition] | |
| "Well worth the wait" | 2008-01-23 |
| I was so excited back when the news broke that Shel Talmy (The Who's original producer) had finally decided to remaster the MG tapes he'd been sitting on for decades, and eagerly bought this two-disc set like a week and a half after it was released. While MG isn't one of my favorite Who albums, I do think it's a very good album (particularly for a debut album, and even more so considering what most albums in 1965 were like), and the deluxe set makes a good thing even better. This is such an improvement, in both sound and length, over the first-generation CD that was nothing more than the unremixed American version of their debut album, retitled "The Who Sings 'My Generation.'" From listening to the first disc, it's obvious that the original British version was the superior one, though at least, in comparison to how Capitol Records retitled and severely rearranged (i.e., misrepresented) The Beatles' albums for the American market, there was minimal tweaking done. The cover shot used is also the one from the original British album, which I think is far superior to the one on the American cover. I love the use of perspective in the photo, and how much more light and colorful it seems, not as dark and crowded.
There are so many wonderful tracks among the original album songs, such as "Out in the Street," "Circles," the instrumental "The Ox," "The Kids Are Alright," and "It's Not True." I think my favorite of the original album tracks is "I'm a Man." Roger might not have had the greatest range at this time, but the voice he was working with was so well-suited to singing these R&B covers, a really gruff raunchy unpolished sound. It's hard to believe "I'm a Man" was left off of the American edition because of the line "When I get you in bed, darling, gonna make love all the time." It sounds so innocuous today, not graphic or R-rated at all! On the first disc, I also love the rarity "Bald-Headed Woman." It isn't really a deep or great song, but it just has that raunchy rough gruff sound that makes this entire album such a delight. The songs on the second disc, by and large, seem more geared towards hardcore fans than new or casual fans, since some of them are alternate versions and instrumental versions instead of entirely new songs, but they're just as much of a delight to discover. Among my favorites are the long-unreleased French EP mix of "Anyhow, Anywhere, Anyway," "Instant Party," and "Motoring." (I've always found it kind of amusing that the second disc is pink, which seems a rather un-Wholike color!) The majority of the bonus tracks hadn't been released anywhere. There are also wonderful liner notes and great pictures. The boys look so young! Overall, while this isn't a must-have for a new fan, it is highly recommended for any fans of longer standing who haven't gotten around to buying it yet. There are so many treasures to be discovered on this set, and the music has never sounded better. After they were proven so wrong about the supposed awful sound on the remastered LAL, I didn't believe anything the audiomaniacs ranted about how the sound on the remastered MG was going to be so awful and that the "right" versions of songs weren't being chosen. People who don't obsess over perfect sound quality and getting obscure releases just to get it, like the Belgian green vinyl version from 1980 from a certain record label, think it sounds just fine, and haven't thrown tantrums because the sound might not be the most perfect it could have been. Seriously, who even cares so much about that when normal people can't even detect these minute differences in sound quality and know that sound does change when something is remastered from tapes that were recorded using a much different recording process decades ago? | ||
 | The Who - The Who Sings My Generation | |
| "Well worth the wait" | 2008-01-23 |
| I was so excited back when the news broke that Shel Talmy (The Who's original producer) had finally decided to remaster the MG tapes he'd been sitting on for decades, and eagerly bought this two-disc set like a week and a half after it was released. While MG isn't one of my favorite Who albums, I do think it's a very good album (particularly for a debut album, and even more so considering what most albums in 1965 were like), and the deluxe set makes a good thing even better. This is such an improvement, in both sound and length, over the first-generation CD that was nothing more than the unremixed American version of their debut album, retitled "The Who Sings 'My Generation.'" From listening to the first disc, it's obvious that the original British version was the superior one, though at least, in comparison to how Capitol Records retitled and severely rearranged (i.e., misrepresented) The Beatles' albums for the American market, there was minimal tweaking done. The cover shot used is also the one from the original British album, which I think is far superior to the one on the American cover. I love the use of perspective in the photo, and how much more light and colorful it seems, not as dark and crowded. There are so many wonderful tracks among the original album songs, such as "Out in the Street," "Circles," the instrumental "The Ox," "The Kids Are Alright," and "It's Not True." I think my favorite of the original album tracks is "I'm a Man." Roger might not have had the greatest range at this time, but the voice he was working with was so well-suited to singing these R&B covers, a really gruff raunchy unpolished sound. It's hard to believe "I'm a Man" was left off of the American edition because of the line "When I get you in bed, darling, gonna make love all the time." It sounds so innocuous today, not graphic or R-rated at all! On the first disc, I also love the rarity "Bald-Headed Woman." It isn't really a deep or great song, but it just has that raunchy rough gruff sound that makes this entire album such a delight. The songs on the second disc, by and large, seem more geared towards hardcore fans than new or casual fans, since some of them are alternate versions and instrumental versions instead of entirely new songs, but they're just as much of a delight to discover. Among my favorites are the long-unreleased French EP mix of "Anyhow, Anywhere, Anyway," "Instant Party," and "Motoring." (I've always found it kind of amusing that the second disc is pink, which seems a rather un-Wholike color!) The majority of the bonus tracks hadn't been released anywhere. There are also wonderful liner notes and great pictures. The boys look so young! Overall, while this isn't a must-have for a new fan, it is highly recommended for any fans of longer standing who haven't gotten around to buying it yet. There are so many treasures to be discovered on this set, and the music has never sounded better. After they were proven so wrong about the supposed awful sound on the remastered LAL, I didn't believe anything the audiomaniacs ranted about how the sound on the remastered MG was going to be so awful and that the "right" versions of songs weren't being chosen. People who don't obsess over perfect sound quality and getting obscure releases just to get it, like the Belgian green vinyl version from 1980 from a certain record label, think it sounds just fine, and haven't thrown tantrums because the sound might not be the most perfect it could have been. Seriously, who even cares so much about that when normal people can't even detect these minute differences in sound quality and know that sound does change when something is remastered from tapes that were recorded using a much different recording process decades ago? | ||
![The Who - Live At Leeds [Deluxe Edition]](product_images/162000/162908_thumb.jpg) | The Who - Live At Leeds [Deluxe Edition] | |
| "One of the all-time greats" | 2008-01-21 |
| The second CD version of LAL (the 1995 remaster) was my 21st birthday present to myself, and I loved it instantly. A year and one week later, I got this expanded deluxe edition as a present, shortly after it had been released, and loved the album even more. A good thing got even better, in spite of how I'd embarrassingly and uncharacteristically believed the rantings of a certain group of audiomaniacs who are rather high-profile in the fan community. I had been led to believe the sound on the remaster was garbage and that it was loaded with tinny muted sounds. It turned out that there was nothing of the sort wrong with it. If anything, the sound quality is even better, and while the sound is a bit lower on the second disc, that's because they turned their instruments down for the Tommy portion of the show. The softer sound actually greatly enhances it, since that whole story benefits from a gentle and more acoustic sound. Really, the only people whining about how this remaster sounds so horrible and is the work of the Devil are audiomaniacs. What is so much better about their hearing that they can hear problems that no one else can detect, let alone enough to raise a ruckus over?
In addition to sounding better than ever and having nearly the complete show, this reissue also has the full-length onstage commentary. My favorite bit of onstage dialogue is Pete's long introduction to "AQO," which is just hilarious. While some people prefer live albums to focus just on the music, I think having onstage banter adds to one's enjoyment of the show, makes it a more personal listening experience. There are so many great performances here it's hard to select just a few favorites! The Who really were better live than in the studio; while their studio albums are great too, the songs just take on a whole new dimension live, are transformed into something even better, totally different entities. It is unfortunate, though, that the powers that be didn't include "Spoonful" on this latest incarnation and that a couple of minutes of the final two songs are missing. I'm also not keen on how Roger stepped back into the studio all those decades later to selectively resing the vocals on some of the later songs. His voice was just fine on them on the original releases, and after such a long intense set, one expects a singer's voice to be a bit shot. Additionally, as good as age has been to him, a 57 year old is not going to sound as good as a 25 year old. I also wish they hadn't broken up the running order by putting the Tommy portion on its own disc. IOW doesn't suffer from having it broken up during the Tommy section. This is truly one of the greatest live albums of all time, and really changed my mind for the better about live albums. Prior to hearing LAL, I'd thought that a live album would just be live versions of studio songs, instead of taking those studio songs and making them even better, turning them into entirely new and powerful entities. It was my own sixth Who album, but I'd unquestioningly recommend it to any new fan as one of his or her first albums. | ||
 | The Who - Who's Next | |
| "It never gets old" | 2008-01-16 |
| This was the second Who album I ever got, on Halloween of 2000. Though at that point I was still only becoming a more serious fan, this was one album I loved and got into right away. It helped that I was familiar with a number of the songs already, and because so many songs from this album are classic rock staples, it really seems like the ideal introductory album for a new fan. Really, what more could be said about this album that hasn't already been said? I know some people feel it's overrated, which could be a valid point given all of the attention given to this album over other of the band's masterpieces, but even though it seems to get more popular attention and acclaim than equally great albums like 'Quadrophenia' and 'Sell Out,' it's still an awesome perfect album. Some people also might feel it's overrated because it seems to be their most commercially successful, but just because an album is a big commercial success and really overplayed on the radio doesn't mean it's less worthwhile than an album that critics often ignore.
Back when I first got this album and was in the process of getting acquainted with it, I was so impressed with it that after listening to it, I would sometimes push play and listen to it all over again. The measure of a truly great album is if one wants to listen to it all over again immediately, if there are no bad tracks (or at least the lesser tracks aren't the types one wants to skip), and if it never gets old, if one still loves it long after first experiencing it. I personally no longer rate it quite as highly on my list of favorite Who records, perhaps because so many of the songs are so overplayed on the radio, but it still sounds so fresh, moving, and wonderful so many years later. Now I tend to only play the original first nine tracks (what song worth its salt is worthy of following "WGFA"?), but the bonus tracks are just as great as the original ones. While later on the remastering team did kind of seem to get lazy and not put as much care and effort into choosing enough bonus tracks, this is one they did get right, with the album's original running length about doubled. Good bonus tracks don't detract from the original album material but only make it even better. This album also works so well for so many purposes--listening to while working out, while getting ready in the morning, to wake up to, while driving down the road, in hot weather, and, perhaps most importantly of all, as a springboard for the new fan to want to explore more Who albums. | ||
| © 2008 GoSale.com (S2) |