magicinaframe-part2

[magicinaframe-part2]

A FEW HOURS OF SUNLIGHT (1971)

[magicinaframe-part2]

Has Anyone Encountered A Sympathetic Movie Character, Recently?

The other morning, I was doing my usual daily start-up routine, in my humble abode. I had a transistor radio tuned to one of New York City's many FM stations as background entertainment and accompaniment. While doing something menial, I heard music for the first time -- a song, sung by a young man whose voice I did not recognize. He repeatedly sang the words "There are too many love songs."

I stopped what I was doing and thought for a moment. The specific words of the song's lyrics were less interesting to me than the way that the young man's voice combined with the instruments that I heard backing him in the recording. But after a few seconds of concentration, I realized that the words of the lyrics connected with an idea that had been on my mind during the previous week or so.

I assumed that the singer (who, perhaps, wrote the lyrics, or collaborated with someone to write the lyrics) had one too many unhappy relationships and was voicing a complaint, a problem, that countless young adults all over the world could relate to.

But, really, weren't those specific words of the song's lyrics an exaggeration? They were an exaggeration to me, as I'm not bothered by multiple love songs playing on a radio station. Should radio stations change their programming decisions and play less love songs every day? No, so far as I was concerned, it's all in the mind of random radio listeners, and when it comes to my mind, my way of thinking, I have no problem if a music radio station plays one love song or fifteen love songs on any given day.

If you -- you who are reading my words -- want to focus on what went wrong with your unhappy love affair, why not find a movie that presents a love affair from start to finish -- preferably a movie that you have never heard of.

One such movie, in fact, was what I recently watched some seven days prior to listening to the song on my transistor radio. What did I know about the movie, before I started watching it? Well, I knew the name of the movie, I knew that the movie was a contemporary drama, I knew the name of an actress who played one of the main characters, I knew when the movie debuted, and I knew the name of the movie's director. I didn't know that a love affair was the sole strand of the plot. I simply focused on what was happening on screen, as I watched my DVD, where I live.

To make the song-on-the-radio and movie-on-DVD comparison more compelling, the movie in question features a song that is sung twice -- once, accompanying the opening credits and the second time, as the movie concludes.

Somehow, I think I'll remember the movie's song and discard the radio station's song down a 'forget it' chute.

The name of the movie in question is A FEW HOURS OF SUNLIGHT (1971) (orig'l title: UN PEU DE SOLEIL DANS L'EAU FROIDE)...

Gilles Lantier (Marc Porel), in his early 20s, lives and works in Paris as a journalist for one of France's best-known newspapers, France-Presse. He has been in a relationship with a fashion model from the U.S. (Barbara Bach), for some time, but the relationship has been stale for a while. Gilles knows that he should end the relationship but can't bring himself to do so. He's all mixed up, he tells his colleague and friend, Jean (Bernard Fresson) in the office. He also confides in a former girlfriend, an older woman. Gilles takes his colleague's advice and travels by train to Limoges, a smaller city south and west of Paris, in a rural part of the country, where his sister lives with her husband.

The new setting is idyllic. His sister and brother-in-law live in a beautiful villa that's adjacent to a stream. Imagine: fresh air, sunlight, fewer distractions than usual. And, yet, Gilles can't shake his negative mood.

Sister and brother-in-law take Gilles to a dinner party in town and introduce him to an extremely good-looking woman, a little older in her 20s, named Nathalie Silvener (Claudine Auger), who is immediately attracted to the handsome journalist.

Eventually, the two characters sleep together at a local hotel. From then on, the plot of the 110-minute A FEW HOURS OF SUNLIGHT details the progress of the love affair and how the relationship concludes (My choice of words is deliberate, here, as I don't give details of a movie's plot away).

As with most drama movie love stories that I've seen over the years, A FEW HOURS OF SUNLIGHT is also a character study, one that I enjoyed watching a great deal.

The one feature of the movie as an experience that I want to remember -- one of the movie's many strengths -- is the way that the two main characters, Nathalie and Gilles, are complemented by all of the supporting characters (There are many supporting characters in the movie, by the way). This is due to a combination of the script which is an adaptation of a novel by Francoise Sagan, the direction of Jacques Deray, and the acting performances of the entire cast. And thanks to the way that the script is written, I easily focused on the two main characters and felt that I was part of the way that the plot played out; i.e., I participated with the movie as the plot played out. That means, also, that I followed every twist, so that, at the movie's conclusion, I could have had a conversation with both characters.

Nathalie and Gilles: they're both sympathetic characters, similar to people who I have met over the years.

If any of what I have written sounds interesting, A FEW HOURS OF SUNLIGHT is available on DVD with English subtitles.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

Carlo and Carla in a scene from THE GARDEN OF DELIGHTS (1967)

[magicinaframe-part2]

The First Thought On My Mind At The Conclusion Of A Movie

I was in my 20s when I started focusing on the very first thought on my mind at the conclusion of a movie. From watching a lot of movies in my growing up years, I discovered -- then, in my 20s -- that the first thought on my mind, when a given movie concluded, meant that I was likely paying attention to everything that happened on screen and, also, that the amount or degree of distraction while watching a given movie did not limit or obstruct my attention at any time, during the movie. The two ideas -- the first thought on my mind and distraction -- were related to each other.

I noticed the very first thought on my mind in movie theaters, but I also tried to make sure that if I was at home or at someone else's house and was watching a movie on television, the possible distractions (phone calls, the sudden appearance of someone who had to talk to me, loud noises, food deliveries, etc.) were kept to a minimum.

I was learning this on my own, paying attention to my thinking and feeling during the time that I was watching a movie.

What was so important about that very first thought on my mind? In my 20s, I had a hunch, an intuition, that it was the start of understanding a given movie as a unique experience -- and it was the result of me paying attention, paying attention as much as I could, to all of the sight and sound information that I took in with my eyes and ears. And so that, in turn, motivated me to continue to make the effort; i.e., to pay attention to all of the sight and sound information on screen.

I'm bringing up this topic, this subject, here, at Tumblr, as a way to consider whether there is something limiting or ineffective about the way movie reviews are written. I'm thinking about the words and phrases that are often used in reviews and about the way that a particular scene or sequence is highlighted in reviews. In the case of highlighting a specific scene or sequence in a movie's review, that scene or sequence quickly becomes more significant, more important than the movie as a whole. Ultimately, I want movie lovers to think about the language they use to communicate with other movie lovers; i.e., the English language.

My pieces that I post, here, are not movie reviews, by the way.

Secondly, I'm bringing up this topic, this subject, because it connects directly with a number of my previous pieces. With a number of movies that I have written about, I said that the particular movie should be better known or thoroughly researched.

In the case of a movie that I have recently watched, the first thought on my mind was, in fact, "This movie should be better known." And then I said to myself "Was it ever distributed to theaters, here, in the U.S.?"

The first thought leads to a second thought, logically.

The name of the movie is IL GIARDINO DELLE DELIZIE, an Italian language movie whose title translates into English as THE GARDEN OF DELIGHTS...

After the opening credits, the movie begins with a series of short, indoor scenes at a reception for a young Italian man and young Italian woman who have just married. The bride and groom are shown in separate shots; they both appear to be in their 20s. The reception guests are only heard; they are partially seen, as they eat food from their plates. The guests' dialog is unusual in that they seem to be wondering whether the marriage will last long.

Immediately after the series of short scenes, the viewer watches a leisurely camera pan of a darkened room. The young man and woman enter the room behind two bus boys carrying luggage. The young man and woman, named Carlo and Carla, have arrived as night falls. This is their hotel suite for the start of their honeymoon.

In keeping with my practice of not saying how the plot of the movie plays out, I will tell movie lovers, here, that, from the reception scenes to the very last scene, the plot of THE GARDEN OF DELIGHTS unfolds over a period of three successive days and ends in a way that deliberately encourages the audience to decide what will take place next -- or what should take place next; i.e., immediately after the last scene is followed by the end credits.

I'm not sharing any of the particulars as to what happens during the three-day time frame. Instead, I will say that, in my humble opinion, THE GARDEN OF DELIGHTS was created and executed as a detailed criticism of a character, a young Italian man, in terms of his relationship with his wife, Carla, and in terms of how he behaves inside and outside the hotel.

The Internet Movie Database informs that THE GARDEN OF DELIGHTS debuted in theaters in Italy in June, 1967, and was not distributed in theaters in the U.S. It has a running time of 95 minutes.

This movie is a combination contemporary drama and character study, with psychological and thriller elements.

Of the two main characters, Carlo and Carla, there is much more information regarding Carlo presented to the audience, as compared with Carla, so it is more likely that adults watching the movie will construct a relationship with the character Carlo. In my humble opinion, that was the intention of director Silvano Agosti and the scriptwriters (one of whom was the director, by the way).

If any of this sounds interesting, THE GARDEN OF DELIGHTS is available on DVD, with English subtitles. I recommend this movie to all movie lovers, here, at Tumblr.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

"What are the young people doing with all of those drugs?"

The title to this piece, here, at Tumblr, quotes an imaginary, random adult family member who is responding to news reports that started proliferating in the second half of the 1960s.

At that time, use of marijuana, amphetamines, LSD, and other drugs became popular among college-age young adults and, then, among high school students throughout the U.S.

"Hey! after school, come meet us behind the bleachers! We'll smoke some weed!"

Try to imagine that you -- you who are reading my words -- are in high school in the early 1970s and one of your classmates invites you to a get-together after school. Why would the invitation be a really good idea -- an idea that you would agree to? And, more particularly, what was it about the idea of getting high on marijuana? Why was getting high on marijuana so much better than being in school, or so much better than being anywhere else?

I'm asking these questions on a weekday in New York City, looking back more than 50 years, attempting to get a handle on why U.S. society in the year 2025 is so messed up.

I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, in the suburbs of New York City. I remember that in the early 1970s, I started paying attention to the attitudes of adults; i.e., not just my parents, my aunts and uncles, but random adults. What were they thinking about, what were the important subjects on their minds, what were they concerned about?

From my day-to-day experiences, I knew that many parents, teachers, and adults in general whom I encountered were upset about the increasing use of drugs. The above title, in fact, is similar to what I occasionally heard spoken on radio phone-in talk shows, back then.

What information about the effects or impact of using drugs -- the drugs that were becoming popular -- was presented to the public in general, at that time? Do I remember?

There's a logical question for me to ask, as a follow-up. In the late 1960s and extending into the 1970s, were there any documentaries on television focusing on teenage drug use? There probably were, but I forget if I ever watched one. If I did, that was because a school teacher made it an assignment. Then, I would have watched and I would have disregarded any of the information in the documentary. And I would have found something else to do -- like listen to music or read a book or visit a friend.

As far as I was concerned, marijuana was perfectly fine to try -- and I did try smoking marijuana, when I went to school in Boston in 1968.

The context that I'm presenting has everything to do with a little-known and odd movie that has gotten me strolling down memory lane. It's a movie that throws a lot of phrases and ideas at the viewer; for example, youth rebellion. An unseen narrator says that there's teenage rebellion going on around the world. Teenagers and young adults use drugs, as an act of defiance, as an act of rebellion. The movie, then, focuses on one drug, in particular: LSD.

The name of the movie is ACID DELIRIO DEI SENSI (1968) which translates from Italian into English as ACID DELIRIUM OF THE SENSES. I describe it as 'odd,' because it starts out as a documentary, with voice-over narration, and then changes into a series of dramas, connected to each other by an unseen narrator. From the way that the individual dramas can be compared to each other, the intention of the people making the movie is to get teenagers and young adults to stop using the drug.

The intended audience for the movie is parents and adult family members in Italy and in other European countries. I'm sure that teenagers tried to watch the movie in theaters, when it debuted.

As was typical for most produced-in-Italy movies, at that time, the soundtrack of ACID DELIRIO DEI SENSI is dubbed. The series of dramas that play out on screen take place in New York City. So there is a great deal of location shooting, using hand-held cameras -- but there, also, is a good deal of studio shooting that was done in Italy.

Two of the characters from the series of dramas are played by actors who were active in the Italian movie industry -- but were not known, here, in the U.S.

This would make for a fascinating research assignment for me: find any journalism regarding the movie; i.e., reviews, articles, interviews in Italian newspapers and magazines, or on Italian radio and television programs.

The characters in the series of dramas who take LSD are young, college-age, or in their 20s. The actors who play the characters all look close to that age range.

The movie claims that members of organized crime are interested in distributing the drug.

The first drama presents an in-demand fashion model named Shelley who also goes to school at New York University. A number of Shelley's friends throw a party for her. It's her 20th birthday. A cake, laced with LSD, is served, everyone present eats portions of the cake. Shelley eventually leaves the party and wonders down an avenue in mid-town Manhattan at dusk. She approaches an office building and notices a pool and water fountain in front, adjacent to the avenue's sidewalk. She, then, starts taking off her clothing and jumps into the pool.

Within seconds, a police car pulls up in front of the building. Two police officers rush from the car, run into the pool, grab Shelley and take her into the car -- which speeds off, joining and passing traffic on the avenue, with siren blaring.

The scene was staged for the movie. And I have to ask: was there anything written about the making of ACID DELIRIO DEI SENSI, in English, in any newspaper or magazine? What did the adults standing outside the office building think was happening?

The details in the scene are worth noting. That partially-seen police car was not a New York City Police Department precinct cruiser. The two police officers, also, were seen from a distance; was that really NYPD clothing that they were wearing? And what about the cameras shooting the scene? Were they concealed, or did the adults on the street see the cameras and the camera men?

I've watched the movie a number of times and I know that I have passed by that building in midtown Manhattan, with its pool and water fountain, many, many times.

In addition to Shelley, the series of drama scenes present and develop 11 characters, and it's one of those additional characters, named Ursula, who I'm going to remember for quite a long time, since her personality is unlike all other characters that I've encountered in youth-oriented movies from the late 1960s-early 1970s; i.e., characters who use or distribute any of the drugs that were becoming popular.

The unseen narrator -- presumably, the movie's director -- mentions that the birthday cake for Shelley, laced with LSD, was delivered by Ursula who could not attend the party.

Sometime later in the course of the movie (running time: 92 minutes), Ursula invites a young, African American dancer named Nick to her apartment with the intention of seducing and teasing him. The dialog between the two characters in this long scene (presented in 3 sections, with a running time of not quite 5 minutes) is extensive.

Among other things that take place in the scene, Ursula tells Nick that she enjoys using LSD to manipulate another person's thinking and behavior. In fact, in a subsequent scene, she does just that.

This kind of thinking and behavior on the part of a young adult character in a youth-oriented movie, with drugs a key part of the plot, is the opposite of the peace and love mantra that was prevalent throughout the popular culture, in the U.S.

I'd like to think that director Giuseppe Scotese envisioned a trend, before it developed. Two major events in the U.S. occurred, after ACID DELIRIO DEI SENSI debuted in theaters in Italy: the Tate-Labianca killings in Los Angeles, California, in August, 1969, and the Altamont Speedway Free Festival in Alameda County, California, held on December 6, 1969.

Hallucinogens, such as LSD, were very much part of both the killings and the free music festival.

If anything that I have written sounds intriguing, then ACID DELIRIO DEI SENSI is available on DVD, with English subtitles, and can, also, be viewed on-line, also with English subtitles.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

L'ENFER (2005) & Traumatic Events - cont'd...

In January of last year, I wrote and posted a piece, here, that focused on a difficult-to-understand movie called L'ENFER (2005). I could not figure out how a group of characters were connected in some way. These characters were all having a great deal of difficulty getting through the day; they seemed greatly affected or impacted by some difficulty they were experiencing. Did these characters know each other? Were they going to meet each other? Were they related to each other? Was there some explanation that was being withheld? The uncertainty, the lack of explanation, extended for quite a while.

This one aspect of L'ENFER's plot was the key ingredient that kept me interested throughout the movie's 102-minute running time. I call that aspect 'the self-defining problem' of each of the characters. Somehow, each of these characters had to overcome a traumatic incident in each of their pasts.

This new piece, here, at Tumblr, adds to what I already discussed in 'Traumatic Events' from January of last year.

As long as an adult watching L'ENFER can focus on the meaning of the word 'trauma,' then the uncertainty becomes less of a problem.

One character finally gets around to speaking one-on-one to another character in that other character's home (her apartment), about 3/4's of the way in the movie's running time, and some traumatic incidents do come into focus. An adult viewer will, then, construct relationships with -- by my count -- four characters.

Three of the four characters come across as sympathetic. One is unsympathetic.

L'ENFER's final scene comes across as a twist ending and may have been one reason why the movie did not play in theaters in the U.S. and Canada, after its world debut at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 9, 2005.

L'ENFER also includes occasional comedy touches which go well with the overall grim tone of the plot. I like to think of the movie as a shaggy dog joke. It helped me get through the days leading up to the new year.

I don't recommend the movie, but if any of what I have written sounds interesting, L'ENFER is available on DVD with english subtitles.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

A REPORT ON THE PARTY AND GUESTS (1966)

[magicinaframe-part2]

"Do you really need information before you watch a movie?"

A group of seven adults -- four men and three women -- are enjoying each other's company, in a clearing, in the woods, somewhere in Czechoslovakia. They're having a picnic.

The seven are all about the same age -- about 30 years old. They all know each other. Their conversation is relaxed, as they eat cake, pie, and drink from bottles of white wine that've been chilled in a nearby stream.

On this sunny afternoon, their conversation continues, and a perceptive viewer will figure out that the picnic has been planned as the first act before a second get-together that involves more people, hosted by someone they all know, a notable person who grants favors (one of the four men is working on a project that can be completed with the host's o.k.). Evidently, working with Mr. Notable is a sure-fire way to become successful in contemporary Czechoslovakia.

The sound of a group of people in the distance interrupts the picnickers' conversation. It's a group of adults and some children, all in a jubilant mood, a wedding party. They're walking, dancing, and singing; one of this group, a man playing a violin, is accompanying them, as they move out of view.

Some of the group of seven try to get the attention of members of the wedding party, with no luck.

"They're on their way to the second celebration," one of the seven says, so the picnic ends earlier than planned. The women all go to the nearby stream to clean themselves and change into party clothes, and then all seven follow a path in the woods in the same direction that the wedding party took.

But something happens. New people appear, out of nowhere. One man, with a strange expression on his face, walks up to one of the seven and locks his arm around one the seven's arms and leads him to the other six picknickers further down the path in the forest. Other strangers, all males, appear and move menacingly towards the other six. Soon, all seven are forcibly pushed as a group, away from the path, into the woods.

I'm briefly describing the beginning of the movie A REPORT OF THE PARTY AND GUESTS (org'l title: O SLOVNOSTI A HOSTECH - 1966), as a way to get you who are reading my words to think about the question I pose in my title to this piece at Tumblr.

This is a one-of-a-kind movie that holds a viewer's interest firmly for the entirety of its 71-minute running time.

I'm asking movie lovers, here, at Tumblr, to imagine that you're moving from channel to channel on your television set with your remote control device and you happen to bump into a movie -- this movie -- a movie you have never heard of.

"Who are these new people in the forest? Why are they making the picknickers move off?" you might say to yourself.

Well, everything that happens from then, onward, is strange and sort of understandable; i.e., not immediately understandable, but eventually sort of understandable.

At first, the seven have to stand on a gravel path elsewhere in the forest, until two men, from the group of strangers, return, carrying a wooden desk and chair which they set down on the gravel path. The man who sits down at the desk is the first new person in the forest who locked his arm around one of the seven -- the man with the strange expression on his face.

Soon, a second-in-command drags the heel of his shoe to create a circle in the gravel around the seven picknickers.

And then a strange conversation ensues.

"Have these seven picknickers done something wrong? Why have they been brought to this new area?" you might ask yourself.

A new character suddenly appears out of frame, a character who takes over the direction of the plot. And all of the characters, led by this new character, move on foot to a new area in the forest where the remainder of the plot plays out.

A perceptive viewer will figure out that the unusual events on screen and the relationships amongst the characters (and there are many characters) refer to events that have already taken place in Czechoslovakia -- or events in Czechoslovakia that might take place in the future.

And if you stay with this movie to its conclusion, I think you'll then want to find information about the making of this movie, the first reception of the movie in Czechoslovakia, and then what happened to the person who co-wrote the script and directed the movie.

The fact that you look for information after the movie concludes means that you watched it with fewer distractions than usual -- which, in turn, means that you're more likely to remember any and all of the details of the movie as an experience.

If any of this sounds interesting, A REPORT OF THE PARTY AND GUESTS can be watched on-line for free with English subtitles at the Internet Archive and is also available on DVD, also with English subtitles.

I've watched the movie twice on DVD, during a recent weekend, and expect to watch it, again, every couple of years.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

[magicinaframe-part2]

Imprisonment

The abduction of a child by a stranger, taken to parts unknown... When was the last time that I heard of one in a news broadcast or read of one, in a newspaper? I can't remember. So I have to jar my memory.

I went looking on-line. The news that I finally remembered was first reported in October of 2018. A 13- year- old girl, a teenager, was abducted from her home, in a rural area of Wisconsin, and was in captivity for not quite 3 months. Her abductor shot her parents.

That was six years ago, when the news was first reported.

The fact that I have not heard of any abductions in this country, since then, may be a good sign, in terms of lessening the general tension, but it may also mean that would-be abductors are just waiting for the start of the new year. The new year of 2025 means the start of a new administration in Washington, D.C. And, maybe, with the new year and new administration, there will be a new news story. I hope not.

But what with the unending politically tense situation, here, in the U.S., most adults in this society are only paying attention to a few news stories on any given day, so it follows that most adults -- with justification -- can't recall the last time that they were aware of an abduction of a child with forced imprisonment, somewhere in the U.S.

Hence my title to this piece at Tumblr: one word, a noun, a concept, a state of being. Is it a word that most people enjoy thinking about? I don't think so.

The word is immediately understood by multiple generations of people, starting with middle school-age teenagers, all the way to senior citizens (such as yours, truly). From a writer's point of view, the concept of imprisonment is a starting point for a story that's guaranteed to hold an audience's attention.

But if you who are reading my words know that the movie you're thinking of watching focuses on the abduction and forced imprisonment of a teenager by a stranger, are you going to watch without prejudging?

Going by the odds, a person thinking about watching such a movie will first look for information about the plot. And -- again, going by the odds -- the search for information will take place on-line. In my humble opinion, that's a mistake. Try watching the movie, without looking for information beforehand.

The movie that I'm thinking about on this crisp fall day in New York City is an example of one about which I had just a little information. I knew that it was a foreign language movie, that it was recent, and that one of the main characters was a teenage girl who had been abducted; i.e., past tense, with the implication that she was no longer abducted. That was the little information that I already had.

In the case of this movie, the prior information did not affect the way that I responded to what was taking place on my flatscreen TV. That's because of the way that the script was written and the way that the movie was shot.

The movie that I'm thinking about today does not show the abduction. It does, early on, show the end of the imprisonment by the abductor.

Consider. A teenager who goes through imprisonment and is finally free from her abductor and reunited with her parents would likely, in her mind, go back and forth; i.e., from the present back to moments from her imprisonment, and then back, again, to the present.

That is how the plot of this movie plays out. So it follows that the acting on the part of all of the performers in the cast is natural and believable. And that is what I found out for myself in watching this wonderful movie -- twice, so far.

It's a movie that never played in theaters in the U.S.

The name of the movie is A MOI SEULE which translates into English as 'mine alone.' The people who made the movie gave it an English language title: COMING HOME. Clearly, they wanted the movie to play in theaters in English-speaking countries.

A MOI SEULE debuted at the Berlin International Film Festival in February of 2012. It's not readily available on DVD with English subtitles.

If you can find a streaming service that has the movie with English subtitles, I recommend that you take the time to watch it. You won't feel as if you're wasting your time. Find out for yourself.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

[magicinaframe-part2]

A Lesson Worth Considering, A Lesson To Be Learned

I have some questions that I need to ask movie lovers, here, at Tumblr. When you -- you who are reading my words -- watch a movie, whether in a theater or any where's else, do you usually have information about the movie that you watch?

I'm guessing that the answer to my question to you is "Usually, yes." Am I right about that?

I'm asking this question specifically with adults in mind. Whether you are a parent, married, separated, or single is not important; what is important to me is that you love movies. And usually, when you watch a movie, you have information about that movie. That's my educated guess, based on my 74 years on planet earth, based on all of my experiences.

So...sometimes, when you watch a movie, you don't have any information about that movie.

Now, the next questions I need to ask are "Is it absolutely necessary to have information about a movie before you watch it and, if so, why is it absolutely necessary?"

The reason why I'm asking these questions is to find out whether or not any adult movie lovers, here, at Tumblr, are aware of how habit is a factor in your viewing decisions.

These are questions I started thinking about in my 20's.

I've mentioned this subject in passing, in a couple of my pieces at this blog. And I'm hoping that you might want to try choosing a movie about which you don't have any prior information and see what you think. Do you feel as if you're doing something foolish in watching a movie with no prior information or are you o.k. with your decision?

I'm guessing that the specific details of the chosen movie have a lot to do with whether you say you had a positive or negative experience watching the movie.

Now, I'm not married, never have been, and don't have children. The only way that I would have a dilemma in choosing a movie to watch with no prior information is if I was babysitting.

So you make your decision. Try choosing a movie about which you have no information.

For the record, I'll say it, again. I really don't want or need information about a movie before I watch it. And usually, I do have information about a movie when I watch it; sometimes, too much information, and, sometimes, a little information.

For instance, recently, from one of the companies with whom I do business, I bought a DVD copy of a movie that I had never heard of. Here is the company's capsule description of the plot: "A passenger train is stalled when a typhoon wrecks the tracks. The commuters are off loaded onto a shuttle bus which is then taken over by a pair of sadistic gangsters."

At the time, when I found this new movie title, the information sounded interesting, so I decided to buy a DVD copy of the movie.

Something like four weeks elapsed from the time I decided to buy a DVD copy to when I first watched it. I knew that it was a produced-in-Japan movie from the 1950's. I had a faint recollection of the company's capsule description of the plot. The words of that plot description were not on my mind while I watched the movie. And I greatly enjoyed this movie.

Sometimes, when I go looking for information after I have watched a movie, I find something -- some piece of information -- that tells me that the people who assemble files for an internet website don't check what they find. In fact, that's a reason for me to not pay attention to the information I'm given before I decide to watch a movie. So...some advice: take the information with a grain of salt.

In the case of this movie, which I have now watched three times, I could have -- and should have -- chosen the movie on just the basis of its title and that it was produced in Japan in the 1950s.

The name of the movie is 8 HOURS OF TERROR. It played in theaters in Japan, starting on March 8, 1957, and, according to the Internet Movie Database, did not play in theaters in other countries.

In watching this movie, I discovered that it is actually a combination comedy and drama. That was information that I did not have beforehand. Did I really need to know that beforehand? No, I did not need to know that.

Since I had a little amount of information to begin with and because I was in a calm mood with few distractions, I paid attention to everything that was happening on the screen before me. Effortlessly. I was taking in all of the sight and sound information and not comparing any of the information with any other movie.

On a large movie theater screen, this would be a movie that many people in an audience in the U.S. would remember for years and years.

There is no mention of a typhoon in the English subtitles. In the movie's first sequence, the subtitles simply say that the tracks are blocked by a landslide. The word 'typhoon' does not appear in any of the dialog in the movie's first sequence -- a long sequence, by the way, with a lot of dialog...

The characters who arrive at a train station in a rural area in Japan are all trying to catch the next day's mid-day train to Tokyo at another station. Some of the characters decide to sleep overnight in the cars of the passenger train that's parked in the station. The other would-be passenger characters don't want to wait; they have to catch that second train 'further down the line.'

To calm down these impatient travelers, a bus is summoned by telephone which shows up, driven by a grouchy guy who looks to be about 40 years old. As the group of impatient travelers push and shove outside the bus, the staff of this train station get word that there are two bank robbers on the loose.

The group of impatient travelers is not deterred. In fact, some of the group like the idea of a dangerous trip. A teenage girl compares the situation to watching a western. To her, it's a thrilling idea, and others in the group agree. They all happily get onto the bus.

The bus moves down the road in the dark, watched by two of the station's staff. The two characters start laughing -- as if to say "O.K., it's your problem now, not ours."

8 HOURS OF TERROR, with a running time of 78 minutes, is another example of an unknown movie that TV station managers should show every couple of years. The drama and the comedy throughout the movie are in perfect balance and many people watching the movie won't be able to tell themselves that they know how the trip concludes; they'll watch and remember all of the situations. As far as I was concerned, all of the situations that occur during the trip were believable -- and you'll notice that I am not specifying any of them.

8 HOURS OF TERROR is available on DVD, with English subtitles. I recommend it to all movie lovers at Tumblr.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

In An Earlier Era, A Movie Character Wants To Commit A Perfect Crime

Right at the beginning of UN TEMOIN DANS LA VILLE (Eng. title transl.: A Witness In The City - 1959), a tall, slender, well-dressed, handsome-looking man, maybe in his late 20s, pushes a shorter, attractive-looking young woman off of a speeding passenger train, as it approaches its destination in Paris, France.

This distinguished-looking character is arrested, brought to court, found ot guilty, and granted his freedom by the Court's Judge, in the Judge's chambers.

The character, named Pierre Verdier, subsequently heads home in his car, but in avoiding running over a dog, collides instead with another car. So, after making necessary arrangements with the other car's driver and getting his bearings, it takes Verdier a while to actually reach his home. And when he does so, he encounters someone who has already broken in and removed the house fuses.

Who is this character? Vedier knows who it is. It's the husband of the attracting-looking young woman who I watched Verdier push off of the speeding train. The character's name is Ancelin.

Ancelin has had one idea on his mind for quite some time -- to exact his personal justice, execute Verdier, and make it look like a suicide.

This all takes place in the space of something like the opening 6 or 7 minutes. The bulk of the plot of this 89-minute movie shows whether Ancelin's need for justice works out or not.

Many movie lovers, in the U.S., have hyperactive imaginations, so you -- you who are reading my words -- may have told yourself that, without watching the movie, you know whether Ancelin succeeds or not.

The logical question for me to ask any movie lover who says that they know whether Ancelin succeeds or not is "Then, do you want to find out if he does succeed?"

The movie has an English language title which I have indicated above. What about that word 'witness'?

Unless you do a search on-line, it's not likely that you would know that the word 'witness' in the title has a loose or subtle meaning. For instance, you could tell yourself "I saw Verdier push Ancelin's wife off of the train."

Did you witness the death of Ancelin's wife?

Were you in Court for Verdier's trial? There were no Courtroom scenes.

In chambers, the Judge says something to the effect that the Prosecution could not change the doubt that the Defense Attorney established. That sounded to me that Verdier was acquitted on technical grounds.

The word 'witness' in the title, in my humble opinion, actually refers to many characters -- and, by extension, everybody living in Paris who would likely pay attention to the news, day after day, as a matter of habit.

Most of the scenes in the movie were shot on location.

I am deliberately leaving out information that would easily give the plot of this fast-moving movie away.

I have to add that UN TEMOIN DANS LA VILLE's director, Edouard Molinaro, is an example of someone in France's movie industry who is not known to people in the U.S. who write about movies for a living. His directing career coincided with the likes of Truffaut, Chabrol, Godard, Varda, Resnais, Rivette et al. As with many of his director colleagues, he also collaborated on scripts.

In UN TEMOIN DANS LA VILLE, he was assisted by one of the French movie industry's respected cinematographers, Henri Decae, whose work, in itself, is one reason why the movie is a positive experience for me.

If any of this sounds interesting, UN TEMOIN DANS LA VILLE is available on DVD with English subtitles.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]

[magicinaframe-part2]

[magicinaframe-part2]

Motivated Movie Characters

I'm thinking of a particular movie, on this sunny weekday in New York City. It's a movie with a crucial element in its plot; i.e., in terms of the way that the plot is set up and developed. That crucial element is the motivation of the main characters who are in relationships with each other.

The element is crucial to me in that it is the determining factor in the movie as an experience. I've watched many movies, over the years, but I often don't have an experience, at a movie's conclusion. I watched this movie that's on my mind on my flatscreen tv. In a movie theater, I think I would have an experience.

From a writer's point of view, I wonder whether the script of this movie was undertaken as an exercise in creating main characters who are like actual people, people who exist separate from the movie, in real life; i.e., people who are difficult to get along with. There are plenty of such people in the society in which I live.

The movie that I'm referring to is a contemporary drama and character study, with psychological elements.

This is not the first time that I've written about a movie, here, at Tumblr, with a similar crucial element. Not too long ago, I wrote about the movie EPILOGUE (org'l title: POSLESLOVIE - 1983). I posted the piece in January; it's titled 'Family Members.'

In the case of EPILOGUE, I had no difficulty figuring out the details of each of three characters who were in relationships with each other. But with this movie, the movie that I'm thinking about today, the details of some of the relationships are murky at its conclusion, and in the case of one character, the script and direction combine to make motivation difficult to explain. The viewer has to figure out the motivation.

As you -- you who are reading my words -- might surmise, I'm not recommending this movie to someone who I don't know.

The movie is called LITTLE SOLDIER (org'l title: LILLE SOLDAT - 2008), a movie that played in theaters in Denmark and Sweden and did not get theatrical distribution, here, in the U.S.

What is it about these main characters? What are their priorities in life? What is the most important idea in their lives? Do they say anything about this, in the course of the movie? Is there anything that the character does during the movie that explains that one, most important idea in their life?

In going into detail about each of the characters, I will be giving the plot of the movie away. This is something I don't usually do in my writing. My decision to do so connects with the way that movie lovers would pass on watching the movie. It's an example of a movie that's not easy to watch. It's painful to watch.

Where would a movie lover likely find information about LITTLE SOLDIER? Here's what the Internet Movie Database has to say about the movie: "A soldier returning from war is hired by her own father to drive his prostitutes around town. She calls upon herself to help one of them."

Considering that many adults in this society have hyperactive imaginations, I'm certain that some movie lovers, reading the above capsule plot summary, will decide to pass on watching the movie.

And a person who decides not to watch LITTLE SOLDIER... Are they missing out on a positive movie experience? I cannot answer for a group of movie lovers who I won't likely ever meet. Instead, I've chosen to think about the main characters of the movie.

The main characters in LITTLE SOLDIER are Lotte, a woman who may be about 30 years old but who looks older; Lily, a younger woman, about 20 years old, from Nigeria; and Lily's father, a man who looks to be about 60 years old, with plain or unremarkable facial features. Lotte is the movie's title character.

Lotte's father, who is never referred to by either his first or last name in the subtitles, runs a trucking company and, more recently, has started a second career as a pimp. Lily is one of his prostitutes and also his current girlfriend.

The relationships amongst the three characters is the main strand of the plot of this 100-minute movie that takes place in and outside of an unnamed town in Denmark.

The other main strand of the plot is the day-to-day workings of the prostitute business run by Lotte's father.

Lotte signed up for a tour of duty in Iraq as a soldier in Denmark's army. She returned home earlier than what she signed up for. This is established early in the movie.

Of the three main characters, Lotte is part of every scene in the movie; even so, I found myself connected to every character, even the supporting characters.

A perceptive viewer will pick up on the fact that Lotte and her father have not had a solid or thriving relationship for some time. Maybe this was an unstated reason for Lotte signing up for a tour of duty?

There are also a couple of references in the script's dialog regarding Lotte's past. She was raised by her grandparents. Her mom died when she was 11 years old. There didn't seem to be much father - daughter interaction in her childhood, no happy moments for the two of them to recall, as the movie progresses.

When Lotte's father shows his daughter some photographs of her wearing a Confirmation dress, he thinks he was the one who took the photographs. It turns out that this is just what he wants to remember; i.e., he created an event in his imagination. Clearly, there's been poor communication between the two characters.

What sets the plot in motion is Lotte asking her father for a loan. He had no knowledge of Lotte being back in Denmark. His usual driver, named Fischer, by chance passed Lotte on the street, late at night; he relayed the information to Lotte's father.

The request for a loan occurs in the aftermath to a night out on the town. Instead of a loan, Lotte's father offers her a job working as the office 'gopher.' But before a workday can properly get started, in walks Fischer with one of his legs wrapped up, hobbling with metal crutches. The usual driver has to recuperate for six weeks.

At first, Lotte's father convinces himself that his daughter will drive just for one day. But the situation with the day-to-day trucking business is not going the way he was expecting it to go: there's a problem with one of his company's trucks in Milan, Italy, and he can't find a new driver that he can trust. So one day as a driver turns into driver-for-the-foreseeable-future.

It's Lily, the girlfriend of Lotte's father, who Lotte drives to and from calls for appointments.

The bulk of the plot of LITTLE SOLDIER plays out over seven consecutive workdays. It's on the fifth day that something happens with Lily that becomes an emotional turning point for Lotte. What happens, exactly? She has to rescue Lily from a life-or-death situation with one of the johns. And following that experience, her father collapses in his office and winds up in the hospital.

In my humble opinion, Lotte has carried a great deal of unexpressed anger within herself about her father. In the course of her workdays as a driver, she comes to a conclusion regarding the prostitutes in general -- and regarding Lily, in particular -- and she feels she has to do something to make life better for the young woman from Nigeria.

Lotte comes up with a plan and it all comes to naught.

If what I have written sounds interesting, find out whether a streaming service has LITTLE SOLDIER available on-line. There is also one company that has the movie on DVD with English subtitles.

-- Drew Simels

[magicinaframe-part2]