#Silly little guy deserves a parade and a picnic

[cerealboxlore]

I had written an entire essay and my app crashed. Took me 40 minutes to write that bitch and it’s gone. Very much sad time rn. Anyways. Sorry that this’ll be less elaborate than the post I wanted. But I made a super long ask detailing resources where you could learn more about Cap & Billy because I saw in one of your posts that you were new to DC & didn’t know much about Billy other than the Shazam! movie.

And since I’m a huge Captain Marvel nerd and I love sharing the character with others, I wanted to give you more resources to learn about him! I noticed that most of your knowledge comes from the post new-52 version of Billy and the Shazam! movie, so most of them are going to be pre-crisis resources.

But I only realized after it deleted that people wouldn’t be able to click the links so I’m making it it’s own post & I’ll make sure to tag ya bc it was initially intended to be for you.

I got links to scans of the original WHIZ comics, interviews with the creators, podcasts detailing the history of Cap, comic recs, fantastic tumblr blogs to follow, to an absolutely fantastic pre-crisis Cap analysis & essay blog that fundamentally changed my perception of the character!

So look forward to a big ol “good places to be introduced to cap’s character” post by yours truly once I get off of work.

Hope you’ll like it! :D

Hun I'm so sorry I took so long with this ask, and I'm so sorry your essay got deleted, I hate it whenever tumblr does that.

This ask filled me with so much glee the day I got it, I love Captain Marvel so much I just want to squeeze Billy Batson's cheeks and feed him a nutritionally balanced meal.

Most of my knowledge of Captain Marvel/Shazam/Billy Batson comes from, well, wherever I can find information, which is a wild adventure by itself! But at least with writing fanficion I can take things easier and even create my own things for the big red cheese.

Also, the biggest reason I never got to your ask was because I was looking for something to include in the reply and only found it recently! I had a comic of our favorite superhero lying around somewhere and I found it! And along the way I ended up buying some more, hahaha

Good lord, I even bought a Keychain doll. And I don't have a Keychain!

At least I have my own little Captain Marvel collection building up now, now including the comic I got from AMC theatres when I saw the movie on opening day!

I highly look forward to being tagged in your post! I know I'll love it!

[fortunatelylori]

Thoughts on Otis Molyneux

I hesitated somewhat before making this post because the fandom seems to have settled on Otis being “a good man who made one terrible mistake” and who am I to rain on anyone’s parade?

Inner goddess: A very opinionated woman … that’s who … No one keeps baby down!

Well … since you put it that way …

My very first meta on Sanditon revolved around the idea that this show is Andrew Davies’ homage to Austen’s entire body of work. And since I discovered a very interesting link between Otis and one of the more misinterpreted Austen characters, I couldn’t resist. Particularly since every time I read a remark on Otis, I end up going:

He is a most fortunate man! Everything turns out for his own good! He meets a young woman at a watering place, gains her affections, she consents to an engagement! He treats her abominably, she bares it like a saint! His aunt is in the way, his aunt dies! He has used everybody ill and they are all delighted to forgive him! He is a most fortunate man indeed!

Emma is perhaps Jane Austen’s most transgressive novel and, while it is not my favorite (that’s Persuasion in case anyone was wandering), I think it’s the clearest indication of her genius. In Emma, Austen not only spoofs herself, as the old maid Miss Bates, but also pulls off a master stroke in concealing her villain, Frank Churchill, not only from the characters but also from the audience.

Austen villains are usually charming, fun and attractive, most of the time far more so than the hero that will eventually win the heroine’s heart. What Austen does with the likes of Wickham and Willoughby is show that superficial charm and a pretty face are poor substitutes for substance, integrity and a value system.

In order to drive that point home, her villains usually suffer a fall from grace: Wickham gets exiled to Newcastle (the degradation!) and is stuck with Lydia for the rest of his life; Willoughby gets ousted by his aunt, told off by Eleanor and publically canceled by Mrs. Jenkins.

Whatever it may be, all of her villains suffer some consequences (even if it’s just not getting the girl as is the case for William Elliot in Persuasion). All except one: Frank Churchill. As Mr. Knightley’s frustrated speech above shows, Frank is so fortunate that by the end of Emma, he gets everything he’s ever wanted and everyone continues to love and cherish him as if nothing had happened (with the exception of Emma and Knightley).

And because the characters move on from his betrayal so quickly you can barely get a glimpse into their POVs, so does the audience. By the end of the book, most of the readers are as pleased with Frank as the people of Highbury.

I can just imagine Jane Austen cackling with joy at our silliness.

Just because there are no consequences for Frank and because all ends well despite his efforts to the contrary, it doesn’t follow that he should be absolved of responsibility. For all his professed love for Jane, Frank involves her in an imaginary extramarital affair, flirts with Emma in front of her and ultimately humiliates her at the picnic. For all his friendliness and affability, he is less than generous to his father, uses Emma for his own motives and is secretly chopping at the bit to see his aunt, the woman who raised him, dead so he can inherit her fortune. Despite what his endgame would suggest, Frank Churchill is an immature, selfish man who is used to getting his own way with little thought or care about how that might hurt other people.

Which brings us to Otis “I fell in love with your soul” Molyneux.

But, but … I hear you say … Fortunatelylori, he did suffer consequences. He lost Georgiana!

To which I say don’t bring out the pity parade just yet. Because in losing Georgiana, Otis’ actions are reduced to an unfortunate youthful indiscretion by the characters (Georgiana and Charlotte) as well as by the people watching. Because he shed some resigned tears and spoke prettily about how much he loved Georgiana’s soul, everyone is “delighted to forgive him”.

But just as with Frank, is his love for Georgiana enough to absolve him of his wrongdoings? Should we cheer for their potential reunion or think she deserves better, the way Mr. Knightley thinks about Jane? And while we’re on the subject, what are Otis’ crimes? He clearly never meant to cause Georgiana’s kidnapping so what’s the big deal?

What gets lost in Charlotte’s “you are insensible of feeling” rebuke of Sidney is that Otis isn’t a victim of circumstances nor is him honestly being in love with Georgiana a get out of jail free card. Otis is a gambling addict who has amassed debts so vast that the man who is trying to collect them resorts to kidnapping a teenager to get his money back. And that’s just one guy he owes money to.

Does he love Georgiana? Yes, in his own way he loves her just about as much as he loves losing money at cards. What do you think would have happened if they married? Because me thinks Otis would run through that 100.000 real quick while simultaneously loving the hell out of Georgiana’s soul.

Which brings me to Otis’s less than agreeable character traits: lying and manipulation. He lies to Georgiana from the first moment he meets her. Worst yet, he takes advantage of her vulnerability and he encourages her to rely solely on him for emotional support:

Georgiana: I was uprooted. Lost. In despair. Otis restored me to life. Those 3 months were the happiest I’ve known.

That sounds great and all but what happens after he’s gone from her life is that Georgiana feels like she suddenly has no one and nothing. Because her entire sense of self was tied to Otis.

He also allows Georgiana to believe that her guardian is a racist monster who is keeping them apart because of the color of his skin when he knows full well that’s not the case and also that Georgiana needs to have a good relationship with Sidney for the foreseeable future at least.

In order to keep up the charade, he takes active part in poisoning Charlotte against Sidney and very much enjoys playing the wronged party in this whole scenario:

Otis: But then your friend, Mr. Parker, took it upon himself to rip us apart.

Charlotte: However painful that might have been, Mr. Parker must surely have had Georgiana’s best interest at heart.

Otis: Then you clearly don’t know Mr. Parker as well as you think.

 Lying is so ingrained in Otis’ modus operandi that he can’t help himself from doing it even when there’s not even the slightest chance that he can get away with it:

Beecroft: Oh, yes! The famous Miss Lambe! Mr. Molyneux speaks of little else. Miss Lambe this, Miss Lambe that.

Otis: That is a lie! If I mentioned her it was only in passing …

Beecroft: I’m not the liar here. You told me a wedding was imminent. That her fortune was as good as yours. I never would have let him run such a debt otherwise.

Otis: All I wanted was to buy a little time … If I had known even for one moment …

What was that about Sidney not having good reason to keep you away from Georgiana, Otis?!?

Also look at him running the eluding responsibility obstacle course like a pro:

Otis: He’s sold her! The villain has sold her!

Charlotte: What?

Sidney: In return for a promise to buy his debt, she’s been handed to some dissolute named Howard. Even now he’ll be dragging her to an altar.

Charlotte: An altar? But that cannot be allowed without your permission.

Sidney:  No. They have no such laws across the border. There they will marry you with impunity.

Otis: Had you only allowed us to marry!

Otis has gambled himself silly, bragged about Georgiana’s money to the worst possible people, disappeared from public view (he hasn’t picked up his mail in weeks because he’s in hiding from the debt collectors) and his reaction is to put all the blame on Sidney. That is not the behavior of a well-balanced adult. This is the behavior of a gambler who thinks he can talk his way out of anything because he has “game”.

This brings us to his last scene with Georgiana when everything comes into focus. If you really think about it, there is not a single moment during their relationship where Otis isn’t lying to her, including the romantic separation that hit everyone in the feels:

Otis: I’ve gambled. That is true. But whatever they tell you, I never gambled with your name.

Notice how the first thing out of his mouth is manipulative. “Whatever they tell you” i.e. turst no one but me. I’m the only one who is telling the truth so listen to me as I lie my ass off right now.

Otis: I never boasted of your wealth. I boasted of you.

Two lines in and he’s already lied twice. You can actually do a play by play of what he says here and what he says in the Beecroft scene.

And then comes the coup de grace!

Otis: It was pride. That is all! And Lord knows, I have paid for it!

As consequence of his gambling, hiding from his creditors and running his mouth about Georgiana’s fortune, the woman he loves was kidnapped, Charlotte almost got raped and Sidney is however many thousands of pounds lighter for paying off his debts. So bring out the waterworks for Otis, guys! Let’s not forget who the real victim in all of this is!  

Alexa, play Despacito.

Otis lies so much he has ended up internalizing his lies to such an extent that he has turned himself into a victim. His narrative is ultimately rejected by Georgiana, leaving him pained but that shouldn’t fool you into thinking he’s a good guy. Neither he nor Frank are moustache twirling villains but their flaws and the way they allow those flaws to affect the people they supposedly love speaks volumes about their character.

Maybe, eventually, they both grow up. Maybe Frank becomes more selfless and starts treating others with respect. Maybe Otis never gambles again and becomes the responsible civil rights leader he wants others to see him as.

But as things stand at the end of their story line, I, for one, am not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s sadly too late for Jane to pick herself another husband. But I haven’t given up hope that Georgiana will shake Otis off like a spot of English rain.

[moviessilently]

Stage star Lenore Ulric brings her signature role to the screen in this melodrama set in Canada. We have Mounties, trees and bloody revenge. The usual Hollywood Canadian wilderness picture, in other words, but we have the added bonus of a super Mountie and a location shoot in Yosemite.

Home Media Availability: Released on DVD.

This is my contribution to the O Canada Blogathon hosted by Silver Screenings and Speakeasy. Be sure to read all the other reviews!

Go get ‘em, tiger!

I do love Mountie flicks and I know I’m not alone. What’s not to love about noble gents in great hands tracking down evildoers? Unfortunately, the quality of Mountie pictures can be described as spotty at best. For every piece of quality entertainment, we have a few bombs. For example, Nomads of the North features Lon Chaney as a sexy fur trapper. Really. Where the North Holds Sway is essentially a western with more flannel. See what I mean? Well, let’s see if this picture will make up for the bad ones.

Will Forrest Stanley’s Mountie win us over?

Tiger Rose is an adaptation of a 1917 stage play written by Willard Mack (you can read a public domain copy here) and produced by the famed David Belasco, who had quite a number of western and wilderness pictures in his repertoire. Warner Bros. scored a casting coup when they obtained the services of Lenore Ulric, who had created the role of Rose on the stage and had not been seen in movies in six years. The film was subsequently remade as both a silent and a talkie as a 1929 Lupe Velez vehicle but, alas, the remake is not on home video.

(I should note that the version of the film I saw runs for just one hour. Tiger Rose as originally released ran for eight reels, which would be eighty minutes at minimum and likely far longer. The storyline is smooth and I did not notice any particularly large holes in the plot.)

The things you find when you go fishing.

The film opens in a quiet Canadian trading community that bears a shocking resemblance to Yosemite. (Mainly because the exteriors were shot there. Whodathunkit?) Sergeant Michael Devlin (four-time Marion Davies leading man Forrest Stanley) is a Mountie’s Mountie and he comes riding hell for leather into town. He has fished a half-drowned woman (Lenore Ulric) out of Loon River and turns her over to the kind locals for some first aid.

We know that this young woman has been through a lot because she looks like this:

I wish I could look that good after almost drowning.

Yipes! When they say “waterproof” on the mascara bottle, they mean it! And who made her hairspray? Color me impressed.

Devlin tells the story of his brave rescue in flashback and it strikes me that this would have been a far more impressive opening scene for the film than shots of the great outdoors. Devlin races on horseback to catch up with the woman in the water—she’s caught in a current heading for a waterfall because this is a melodrama—and then he dismounts and throws himself off a cliff into the river below. That is some grade A stunt work and it’s a pity that the suspense is spoiled by using the flashback structure.

Now THAT is what I call an epic rescue.

Anyway, the young woman is named Rose and she likes to hunt and swear in the most adorable way possible. Devlin is interested but Rose falls for Bruce Norton (Theodore von Eltz), a dashing engineer. (Not there are two words I never thought I would type in the same sentence.) It’s love at first sight but Bruce is on a mission: he has tracked down a nefarious bad guy-type and he means to kill him for the sake of someone called “Helen.” There’s a suitably violent struggle for a pistol and Bruce ends up shooting his target, one of the local doctors.

When confronting one’s arch-nemesis, one would think one would be on the lookout for hidden weapons.

Another local doctor (this town is flush with ‘em, it seems) examines the body and delivers a mysterious proclamation. It seems that everyone in this picture has decided to become Lemony Snicket. The second doctor is played by Sam De Grasse, noted villain of Fairbanks flicks, and he sets out to help Bruce… or does he?

Devlin receives news of the murder and springs into action. He takes his trusty rifle and is able to wing Bruce lickety-split. Bruce is in a pickle as a storm is coming in and Devlin’s posse has the area surrounded. He takes refuge in Rose’s cellar, where she and the doc discover him a bit later. But Devlin hasn’t given up the chase and it’s going to take a very clever plan to evade our unstoppable Mountie.

Bruce learns that Devlin plays for keeps.

Will Bruce get away? Do we really want him to get away? I mean, that Devlin guy is pretty cool. In any case, find out in Tiger Rose!

Lenore Ulric does well overall but her Broadway experience causes her to play things in a broad way. (Get it? Get it?) It’s not too distracting but there are a few scenes in which her gestures get out of control and I wish I could assure her that we saw her in the nickel seats. She also applies her makeup with a trowel, which is distracting alongside the more subtle cosmetics of her costars and the general grit and outdoorsiness of the picture. (Makeup in the silent era was wildly inconsistent but the basic rule was that the actors should try to match one another in general amount and application.)

I’ve got a fever and the only prescription is more lipstick.

Ulric is further hampered by silly title cards that attempt to mimic French Canadian dialect. And does her background ever amount to anything in the picture? It does not. I am on record as hating dialect title cards and unnecessary dialect title cards are even worse. Frankly, it’s amazing that Ulric manages to rise above the silliness.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Let’s face it, Rose’s motivation is a little weak. She met Bruce the day before and had a flirtation that lasted all of five minutes, that hardly seems like a good reason to risk everything for him. But… this is a melodrama. Love at first sight is a staple. What’s more problematic is the fact that her contributions to the story are pretty much superfluous. The doc and Bruce would have escaped on their own and the ending of the film (being intentionally vague here) would have been essentially the same with or without Rose. Yes, it’s fun to see a silent heroine wield a pistol but it’s not unheard-of. (See Back to God’s Country, a smashing Canadian wilderness picture in which Nell Shipman saves the day with firearms and a killer dog.)

For Helen – You will always be in my heart, In my mind, And in your grave.

Theodore von Eltz is okay as Bruce but the film misfires when it plays Button Button with his past and motivation. It would have been far more believable if he had confided his sad tale to Rose. As the film stands, the leads are forced to run around being terribly mysterious when any normal person would be asking some questions. “Um, why’d you shoot the guy? I know the doc said you had good reasons but I’d kinda like some clarification. Also, do you shoot girls? Asking for a friend.” Look, this mournful “Oh, my horrible past that I will not clarify!” stuff is amusing in A Series of Unfortunate Events but it gets rather tedious in a drama.

This looks like a job for… Devlin the Super Mountie!

I usually find Forrest Stanley to be a bit on the dull side but I really liked Devlin the Super Mountie. He doesn’t show up much in the beginning but every time he does, he performs some splendid stunt, strikes a heroic pose and otherwise shows himself to be Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. In our world of gravel-voiced antiheroes, Devlin’s unabashed good guy-ness is a positive breath of fresh air and Stanley manages to do it all without coming off as sanctimonious or trite.

No villain is safe on Canadian soil!

Devlin’s whole “unstoppable manhunting force for good” act just gets better and better as the film progresses. I don’t know about everyone else but I was definitely rooting for him to get his man. The fact that Bruce’s motivation is not revealed until the finale makes him a rather opaque hero, which in turn makes Devlin’s straightforward lawman stuff even more appealing. Why were there no Sgt. Devlin of the RCMP spinoffs? Come on, people, you missed a huge opportunity!

Looks trustworthy to me.

I have to say, though, that the casting of Sam De Grasse really threw me off. Here’s a man who can make picnics and candy and flowers look sinister and he spends the entire picture lurking about in a most ominous manner. I kept expecting him to stab Bruce in the back or something.

Legendary cinematographer Charles Rosher makes the most of the films Yosemite locations and the cast is frequently posed against lovely natural backdrops. Hey, if you’ve got it, you flaunt it. He does equally well with the moody shadows of the nighttime storm scenes. The man was good, is what I’m saying. Check it out:

When interviewed by Kevin Brownlow for The Parade’s Gone By, Rosher revealed the film was significant in his career as it was the only time movie mogul Harry Warner ever gave him (or anyone else) a bonus. Lenore Ulric was due back in New York for rehearsals and if the film was not finished in time, the entire crew would have to follow her to the east coast and finish making it there at great expense.

She has a schedule to keep and you do not want to cross her.

Director Sidney Franklin was too nice to rush things along so Rosher took over the role as expediter and the picture was finished on schedule. Ulric got to New York in time, Warner Bros. didn’t have to move production across the country and everyone was happy. Harry Warner personally thanked Rosher and told him that shooting in the east would have added $25,000 to the film’s budget. There was a funny bit of business where Warner wouldn’t let go of the check but Rosher got his bonus in the end. Fully deserved too, I might add.

(Rosher also received a telegram from Belasco himself complimenting him on his camera work. Rosher claimed it was just because Ulric, a Belasco favorite, liked her closeups.)

In the cellar, out of the cellar, in the cellar… make up your minds!

But back to the film as we need to discuss some significant flaws. The main issues of the story come from the script. Its stage roots show particularly in the third act as the story’s setbound nature becomes obvious. The leads scamper from the house to the cellar to the house to the cellar to the cabin to the house. Rosher and Franklin try their best to open things up with shots of the great outdoors but there’s only so much that can be done and the story ends up feeling a bit claustrophobic.

No, sitting under a staircase doesn’t count as a scene change.

(Spoilers Ahoy!)

The finale of the film descends into absolute Victoriana, coincidences and all. It turns out that the doc was Bruce’s brother-in-law all along and it looks like everyone is going to get away when Devlin reveals himself and begins to make his arrest. Rose springs into action and holds Devlin back with a pistol while Bruce and the doctor escape. This means prison for Rose but after holding Devlin prisoner all night, Bruce returns to turn himself in and save her from sacrificing herself. Why they didn’t just tie Devlin up and all escape together, I have no idea. In any case, Devlin is moved by the gesture but he still arrests Bruce.

Hurray! You know, for people whose Hollywood motto is, “We always get our man,” the Mounties certainly seem to let a lot of fugitives go. I’d complain but then I remember that I almost never get my mail delivered during snow, sleet and dark of night. Hollywood needs more realistic mottos for its government organization. “We always get our man unless he’s dating that girl we used to like.” Well, not this time! Devlin remains a Mountie’s Mountie and thank goodness. Of course, Bruce just gets a few months in the pokey, which kind of retroactively nullifies the urgency of his escape. “I need to get away! I can’t serve six months! It’s inhuman!”

(End Spoilers)

Goodby and good luck in your new life, Rose. I planted cocaine in your dog sled.

Is it worth seeing? Oh, definitely. Tiger Rose is as corny as can be and no Mountie film cliché is left out, though some are twisted about and played with. Also in the plus column, the cast is game, Rosher’s cinematography is gorgeous and it’s all in good fun. If you get into the spirit of the thing, I think you’ll have a great time. It’s one of the better Mountie flicks of the silent era.

P.S. #TeamDevlin

Where can I see it?

Tiger Rose is available on DVD from Grapevine.

Tiger Rose (1923) A Silent Film Review Stage star Lenore Ulric brings her signature role to the screen in this melodrama set in Canada.