Germany's Tom Sawyer Film An Unexpected Delight

 

 

In my opinion, no American child should be deprived of Mark Twain’s immortal story, Tom Sawyer. It’s a heavenly depiction of childhood and adolescence at its grandest form. I was surprised to find that what I had always considered a distinctly American tale had caught the attention of the German cinema crowd. Well, why not? We use the Grimm fairy tales all the time in our own movies. Tom Sawyer (2011) showed us the story actually better than most other adaptations I’ve seen. It is highlighted through a cast who work well with each other, as well as scrumptious, sublime story telling that is not overdone but emotionally fulfilling and accessible to an audience, who won’t be disappointed.

For those of you who are unfamiliar to the immortalized adventures of one of the most famous lads ever to get himself into a heap of trouble, Tom lives with his Aunt Polly and Sid, his half-brother, in the fictional town of St. Petersburg near the Mississippi River. Tom is a clever one who cleverly ropes kids into appreciating the nonexistent “joys” of painting a very long fence, and hangs out with Huck Finn, a classic dropout and freewheeling social outcast. Yet, they are good friends who trust and support one another.

Their friendship, however, is put to the test when they witness a murder and swear not breathe a word about the bloody affair to anyone, which Tom eventually does against his friend’s will. This leads Tom on a number of adventures and misadventures that turn to Becky Thatcher, the mayor’s daughter and the girl Tom fancies.

The film is character driven and brilliantly aware of itself. Aunt Polly and Becky were displayed not as whimpering, characterless numbskulls whose laughable stupidity drags through the film and who can do no more but smile throughout the entire picture as if somehow proud of their dentistry, but as strong-willed, and somewhat commanding feminine characters. It was particularly delightful to watch them when the mighty Tom Sawyer himself had blatantly no means of escaping their will. A number of viewers in the theatre were actually delighted when Aunt Polly gave Tom a rather decent slap in the jaw when discovering he lived. There were other such moments when Tom Sawyer was out shown by the opposite sex. Indeed, Tom adventured more with Huck; less stressful. 

Tom and Becky

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer is one of the greatest coming-of-age stories one will ever come across. From his experiences with Becky, to his adventures with Huck, Tom is shown always in the mode of a hidden confusion. There is one moment when having won Becky through a hideous beating, he is invited to her wealth-laden backyard, which is as elaborate in decoration as is Becky in ideas. Though he feels high and mighty for a time, this quickly erodes to make way for a nervous wreck. So once Becky comes on a bit too strong for him, he says a whimpery good bye and runs of to play with Huck, showing that perhaps he is not as grown up as his courage might have some to believe. 

Tom and Becky were played fittingly by Louis Hoffman and Magali Greif, respectively. The two conveyed classic characters perfectly, though Hoffman didn't always seem dirty enough, but Leon Seidel portrayed a slightly poochier-than-I-expected-looking Huck. That being said, the three child actors carried the show amiably and to great content, which is crucial in this type of movie.

Though Tom and Huck Finn are, though the best of adventuring friends, at times at odds, when Tom does find himself wanting to spend more time with Becky. Huck, a social outcast, feels then rejected and finds himself resenting his maturing friend. The film displays beautifully this relationship how their difference is social status triggers tension and a gradual split (though amends are eventually made). To elaborate, Huck’s dad is a drunk, mentioned quite emotionally by Huckleberry in the film, and a hideous influence to the unlearned child. This differs Huck from Tom, who has Aunt Polly to care for him and see that he is educated. Huck, because he doesn’t go to school, is a far more independent and indeed lonely youngster. He depends on his friendship with Tom. The actor who played this character played him as such, he was not unnecessarily cocky but just…lonely. Of course Tom’s betrayal of Huck’s wishes when telling on Injun Joe is another slap in the face.

The tension was well played out and was never as cheesy as some lesser versions.

                                                                Furmann as Injun Joe

 

Benno Furmann plays a creepy, and complex, Injun Joe. The bit where he falls for Aunt Polly is heartbreakingly genuine, and not found in many film versions. It is out of pity and unbigoted goodness of heart that she befriends him. Well, he found a friend a little too late. Tom's conflicting feelings about Injun Joe (having seen him murder a man), are played out well with stellar performances by other characters and a well-conceived nightmare sequence involving Injun Joe and Aunt Polly. Injun Joe, however is finally revealed as a Mephistophelean character and is defeated by Tom in a well-rounded and believable climax that does justice to the rest of the film.

Though the film will be unavailable to the majority of American society, it is most certainly a memorable adaptation well worth writing about. Though I have enjoyed writing to you about this picture, I did have more fun watching it. It’s an emotionally satisfying, fulfilling adventurous and witty motion picture that fathoms an excellent reason to learn German!

At this moment, thinking of the film, my new book version of Tom Sawyer is by my side waiting for me to revisit a longtime favorite. I’ll probably read all night long.

 

 

Filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza Makes Rare Defence for Country in America: Imagine a World Without Her

 

Immigrant and conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza has deep affection for the USA. And in his new movie, America: Imagine a World without Her, presents good reasons for it.

Still, it’s an uphill climb to get the message across.

Based on his wildly popular book of the same name, D’Souza solidly identifies the claims against America in war, capitalism, and racism and debunks the heck out of them. As we see Washington get shot on the battlefield of the revolutionary war in a spooky alternative universe, the question emerges: what would the world be like without America.

He first interviews and presents the attackers  rather frightening case, making many patriots in the audience nervous, before taking a step back and examining the validity of their arguments in greater detail. 

Communists and leftists such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Eric Dyson, Saul Alinsky followers and Ward Churchill and further prominent activists are interviewed. Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Ted Cruz, and many notable others in academia then take on their arguments, reducing them to pulpy orange juice.

Via TV clips, Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, and bomb-happy Bill Ayers also make appearances.

         D'Souza battling communist Bill Ayers on The Kelly File. Image from Fox News

D’Souza made a name for himself when he made the film 2016: Obama’s America. It became the second highest grossing political documentary after Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.

Impressively, his new endeavor has become the seventh-highest grossing political documentary, joining a list of predominantly liberal films.

Yet critics that bowed their heads in reverence to Moore, condemned D’Souza’s film.

RogerEbert.com claimed that “it plods along with all the verve of a PowerPoint presentation”, calling it the historical recreations “cheesy” and the interviews “over edited”. Jim Gaines of Reuters went so far as to tell people to even go see the film.

It’s no wonder its Rotten Tomatoes approval rating is around 9%.

Critics were indeed swift to dismiss the film, but actual audiences housed very different opinions.

According to Metacritic, a well-regarded website which ranks audiences approval of the films, the film comes in as an A+. 

Few films receive an A+ on Metacritic, making America one of the highest ranked movie events of the year.
 

It is also the highest grossing documentary of the year so far.

So much for the reliability of the mainstream, albeit liberal, press.

In addressing these critics concerns, I will start with the allegation that it’s a mere PowerPoint presentation.

It used bullet points to list the concerns some folks store of America. If that’s a little PowerPointy, so what? It made things nonetheless fascinating. Plus, it’s a documentary. What do you expect, ballet? Tinkerbell?

        

Washington as depicted in film

The historical recreations served their purpose as powerful, realistic bits of filmmaking and to say that they were cheesy is voicing one's mere disdain for a good history lesson made interesting with music and effects.

In context, the left has never much approved of actual history lessons. If they did, this film would never have had to be made.

First RogerEbert.com implies boredom through a hideous high-schoolish image of a sluggish, pretentious PowerPoint presentation, then they condemn the film for being powerfully cinematic.

If you want to see a longer, uncut interview or debate, switch on your TV or attend a Ford Hall Forum event.

This is a movie. The filmmaker’s job is to present a good product interestingly and economically. The editing accomplished just that. It was a job well done.

On another note, I may be mistaken, but the craft of a mainstream critic to give his personal, expert analysis on what makes a film strong or weak, providing the reader insight on what might or might not be good to see. The critic does not act as a century guard commanding people to see or not see a film.

Producer Gerald Molen (Schindler's List) said he had never before encountered anything like a critic such as Gaines heeding moviegoers to isolate the film.

Gaines perhaps should be reminded that he is far from a traffic light, commanding viewers not to see one film or the other, but a source of reference for judgment.

That is all.

   Former Reagan Policy Analyst and filmmaker, Dinesh D'Souza. Image from Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Largely excellent arguments crafted by D'Souza make the film one of the most informative documentaries around.

I do agree with one reviewer that a bit more confrontation and debating between the two sides and their arguments would have been nice. But again, a filmmaker does have to be economical though and some perfectly good movies--a few of the Harry Potter films—have been attacked for being too long.

Again, keeping things economical is important, as any professional filmmaker will tell you.

Upon dealing with the allegations, the film deals with whose propping up these ludicrous statements regarding anti-American exceptionalism.

It deals with the leftist agenda, used by President Obama and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and its gradual plan to downturn America.

The information revealed is startling and perhaps somewhat terrifying.

Those who are open to an alternate picture of America and who begin to lodge a deep understanding of the USA will certainly tear up at the end when the puzzle comes together and we step back to cast our glance upon a most ugly image. Tears of happiness, however, flood the theatre upon the ending rendition of the American anthem.

In the film, D’Souza does go over his conviction for violation of (rather idiotic) campaign finance laws and openly, humbly declares his mistake. A far cry from a certain gentleman in the White House, he does lay his cards on the table.

Cinematically, the film was visually stunning, engaging, and adhered to a high standard of storytelling as any good film should. It's an intellectual thriller.

Content-wise, this movie is nothing short of eye opening.

With the producers of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park backing it, and the highest quality of documentary filmmaking, this conservative film represents a prestigious tier of filmmaking in a predominantly leftist field.

Despite unearned bashing from critics the film has been enormously favorable with audiences and has booted out a Moore film as seventh highest grossing political documentary of all time.

Impressive.

A dramatic plea for justice, the film is a worthwhile summer adventure.

Text copyright by Robert Steven Mack. All rights Reserved

Book Review-Secret Agent 44: Who Stole Air Force One?

By Robert Steven Mack

 

                                      

A recent children’s spy book, Secret Agent 44: Who Stole Air Force One, from author Dow Kump proves itself a playful, adventurous, and most engaging affair.

            This relatively unknown author first came to my own attention quite a few years ago when I was wandering the isles of my library's book store.

            A book with a space shuttle pictured on the front caught my eye. The book itself had been tossed in the corner. Project 00 was luring me to its side.

            The cover art looked a bit like one of those early/mid-2000s video game.

            There wasn’t much in the book store then, and after all how bad could a book with a picture of a space shuttle be? As a matter of fact those products are usually the best—anyone remember The Magic School Bus?

            The book turned out to be an amusing, well-written adventure…and the author's name was inscribed in the front.

            His new book is more aimed at readers in the second and third grade according to Kump’s website.

            It shared with his previous book the familiar video game-esque cover art.

            Kump seems to have a knack for taking the wildest, dearest boyhood fantasies and turn them into a wholesome young reader’s delight:

            12 year old Charlie Richmond dreams of walking in his Dad’s shoes as one of the greatest spies of all time.

            Richmond trains himself, innovates new gadgetry, and sets his sights on a particular mission to accomplish, only to bungle and make a disappointing slop of it.

            However, his understanding mother encourages him to pick himself up, dust himself off, and continue to reach relentlessly for his dream.

            Richmond only finds himself in the middle of further mishaps.

            When the powerful and undeniably cool Air Force One disappears, Richmond goes after the crooks in charge.

            The thieves, two dim-witted magicians have obtained a dangerous device that transports any object from one location, plopping them roughly in another.

            Upon finding the large aircraft, he sets up camp inside the machine and develops an elaborate scheme to thwart the magicians by using wit and gadgetry.

                                  

            His father and his team espionage swingers find Richmond, and the two teams end up battling two evil magicians while the plane is in flight and trying to land it in a football stadium.

            Kump believes in attaching themes to his books. For Project-00, it was “nothing great happens without determination,” and for Secret Agent 44, it reads “follow you dreams,” according to his website.

            The book was atypical only in its enduring, somewhat attractive outlandishness, perfect for young children—as well as those who perhaps still wish they were young children.

            Richmond was decently fleshed out, though his brother was formulaically reminiscent of the elder sibling in his previous book, though I don’t think readers will mind.

            The writing is clear and solid and formulated for a child’s accessibility.

            Some children may find the message of the book cheesy and too mushy for their likening. Those youngsters never bother to read anyway.

                                          

            I would commend Kump on his delivering a valuable message; it’s what more books should be engaging in. It’s this, and the author’s magnificent imagination to match a child’s mind that make this book worthwhile.

 

            It’s Leave it to Beaver, but with the James Bond/Alex Rider excitement. In short, that adds up to something recognizably Disney-esque.

            As a matter of fact, it would be a fun candidate for a Disney movie: a fun sibling relationship, two bumbling crooks, excellent message of following your dream, as well as the importance of family, a brave, determined and certainly innovative main character, and a dozen Shirley Temple’s worth of action.

The best part might be the sequence when Richmond rains gadgetry and pitfalls onto the crook magicians, almost like something from Home Alone.

It’s rather fun to visualize, even for someone who’s past the reading target such as myself.

Kump has transcended his imagination with a captivating young read, held at its core by one of the finest messages one can offer the young, determined mind of any age: Follow your dreams!

The book can be found online at Amazon or at the author’s website. My recommendation is to obtain the book for your elementary school student.

Chances are, it’ll do much for them than anything they’ll read in school.

 

 

Copyright 2014 by Robert Steven Mack, all rights reserved.

Muppets Most Wanted: A film review from Robert Steven Mack

Greetings ladies and gentlemen! Spread the word: I’m back...and loving it! Today, I shall be offering my few cents on a new movie event that struck theaters a few weeks ago: Muppets Most Wanted. Speaking of comebacks!

So, it turns out their last film succeeded in rebuilding Jim Henson’s rather iconic franchise...with a twenty-first century look. Kermit. Fozzie. A vain female pig. A whatever. In the The Muppets (2011), we had the opportunity to get to know these characters better than ever before. What it thrived on was an intense emotional touch, a treat for sentimental old fools such as myself who appreciate the Muppets' past glory.

So what about this new one, Muppets Most Wanted? As Kermit sings in the opening, the sequel is never quite as good as the original. Most people seem quite attached to that theory. Many have affirmed that the film is solid yet expressed their view toward its inferiority. Do I agree?

Well, their last film has wrapped, and the Muppets are unsure of how to continue. What to do? Go on a world tour, many start to chant. Enter Dominic “the Lemur” Badguy (Ricky Gervais), a villain ranked # 2 worldwide, posing as a potential agent for the Muppets, who plans to use the Muppets to steal the crown jewels of England. His partner in crime is a wanted Russian criminal, Constantine, who - except for a distinctive wart on his face - oddly resembles Kermit.

Kermit is pensive at first about sharing his leadership role with Dominic, but finally gives in after persuasion from the other Muppets. After making some risky investments that appear to pay off, the Muppets begin to respect Dominic more than Kermit himself.

Planning their first performance at the grand opera house later that night, Kermit walks through the uglier parts of Berlin when confronted with Constantine, who plants a wart on Kermits face and disguises himself as his nicer counterpart. Kermit is promptly dragged to the Russian Gulag under the belief he is the world’s #1 criminal.

The new Kermit, a tricky character, is a lot less strict with the Muppets than the old one. He even proposes to Miss Piggy while in Dublin, Ireland, their third stop after Madrid, Spain.

Meanwhile, Sam the Eagle, a CIA Agent, and his Interpol counterpart, played by Ty Burrell, together pursue heists in all the places the Muppets performed-all part of the two ingenious criminals plan. Kermit, while at the Gulag, meets up with Nadya (Tina Fey), a strict, yet love-sick prison guard.

Walter, Fonzie, and Animal figure out Constantine’s true identity and escape to the Gulag to save Kermit, before the still fooled Miss Piggy marries her conniving “lover” in London.

The previous film, though humorous, benefited the most from its bittersweet emotional edge. This film lacked that, but made up for it in its thoughtful characters and comedy. 

In the 2011 movie, the human characters came off at times as flat and obtrusive. In the Muppets Most Wanted, Ty Burrell, Ricky Gervais, and Tina Fey were given good parts and executed them extremely well. The human performers came off as truly beneficial to a Muppet movie as never before in the history of their theatrical releases. They added to the film, and you believed the Muppets were real when they interacted with such well-formed and interesting characters. Tina Fey was marvelous as a prison guard: I could feel her conflicted feelings for Kermit as a prisoner and as her crush came off very nicely. Gervais was nothing short of hilarious as the villainous criminal who scoffs at being inferior to his partner, a frog. And Ty Burrell was whimsical in portraying along with Sam the Eagle, how two competitive government agencies -  CIA and INTERPOL- can manage to get along in the most gratifying way.

“The Rainbow Connection”, “Pictures in My Head”, and “Man or a Puppet” from The Muppets highlights an astounding range of musical moments that are not easy to live up to. The three I mentioned highlight the heartwarming sentimentality and emotional self-discovery basis on which the first film thrived. So what about the songs, you rightfully ask of Muppets Most Wanted?  I can’t complain. The score was a lot of fun and charmingly inventive! Nothing dragged.

“The Big House” with Tina Fey and her band of merry prisoners was catchy and seemed a bit of an irreverent, poetic addition to the film in an upbeat, foot-tapping way. Good fun. "Interrogation Song” was also so comically silly and likeable; I’ve still got it buzzing away in my head.

“I'll Get You What You Want (Cockatoo in Malibu)” sung by Constantine to Piggy was not exactly silly and seemed like a more traditional Muppet presentation. But I loved it. It was perfect.

“We’re doing a Sequel” was a fittingly grand opening, Muppet-style that allowed the film to poke fun on itself just a little.

“Something So Right” was the film’s one emotional song with an odd, irreverent appearance from Celine Dion. It was funny, but also a testament to how the film ends up identifying itself as a comedy. Piggy sings about her wedding to Constantine and how she feels upset for a reason she cannot identify. Well-written and worthy of decent praise, the song still lacks the immense power of “Man or Muppet” or “Pictures In My Head”, some high points of the last film. Muppets Most Wanted, however, does not have any high points. It runs smoothly from start to finish devoid of bumps. This song therefore, cannot be put down. It was excellent and fit perfectly.

Last, but definitely not least for the film’s original songs, “I’m Number One” features Constantine crooning and Dominic lamenting over the fact that Constantine has surpassed Dominic, or “the Lemur” in the international rankings of dangerous criminals. It might be my favorite. It’s absolutely hilarious. Period. It’s a lovable piece of work that includes tap-dancing, cool, painful jumps, and a marvelous bit of text to use whenever competition with your rivals has reached a triumphant climax.

The finale of the film is a reprise of “Together Again” from Muppets Take Manhattan, one of my other favorite Muppet films, and is a suitable ending to the film. The film’s songs are comfortable and blend in perfectly with the rest of the material.

The comedy in this film is more intelligent than both other Muppet films and today’s formula family film. The jokes about Ty Burrell’s constant vacations as an agent were amusing. The songs of course were not without wit. “The Big House”, “I’m Number One”, and “We’re Doing a Sequel” are terrific examples.

I enjoyed seeing the different locations and the spy theme worked a lot better than the Muppets previous attempt in The Great Muppet Caper (1981), not a bad film, but not as good as this.

The film is accessible to everyone. There is humor for adults and children and alike and were sewn together seamlessly in the film. It’s good, family entertainment that utterly fails in being categorized as “bland and uninteresting”, as Grandpa Simpson would put it.

Going around the world and encountering criminals is not a new road. Remember Cars 2? I originally thought that would make the film a bit bland. Watching it, I discovered significant error in that presumption. The film is witty and original in ways that renders such a deeming irrelevant.

Apparently the film was inspired by The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan, The Pink Panther and The Thomas Crown Affair. These inspirations were identifiable, yet loose. The film stands alone.
 

The Muppets film is a sentimental, character-driven, and also not unintelligent-though in a different manner-blazing tribute to the past. This film goes in a different direction: a feel-good comedy with plenty of fun and adventure. A wise move indeed. To re-iterate, its comedy is the best of all the Muppet films. It’s not without a heart, but its aim is fun and adventure. From beginning to the very last few seconds, the film rolls along briskly and admirably. The Muppets are off and running. It has been confirmed. If they continue on this path, we can certainly expect great things from them in the future.

copyright 2014 by Robert Steven Mack

"Deep In My Heart" - A classical musical film review by Robert Steven Mack

Once Upon A Time, during the mythical era  known as classic Hollywood, it was discovered that one could take the life of a well-known song writer and transform it into a heavily-financed motion picture. Such films would be brimming with popular tunes and ballads, lavish costumes, revered stars and the most talented directors money could transport. Nothing short of a star-filled musical extravaganza which nearly every major studio would try to produce.

Many such pictures were created: Words and Music, based on the team of Rogers and Hart; Night and Day, with Cary Grant as Cole Porter; Danny Thomas played Gus Kahn in I'll See You In My Dreams; Three Little Words based on the team of Bert Kalmar and Harry Ruby played by the incomparable Fred Astaire and Red Skelton, respectively, These have been perhaps only a few of the most remembered and revered movies of this era. Indeed, when strolling along the vast road the land of classic films, encounter with these films is probable.

Characteristically, these films come off as sweet, dramatic-not to mention lavish-musical productions and maybe contain a light dose of comedy, if lucky. I recently came across one of those masterpieces in Classic Musicals From the Dream Factory Volume 3. This MGM collection actually contains relatively unknown musical romps and adventures the common audience is unlikely to be familiar with. One of the films is the collection is Deep in my Heart. What would a collection of classic musicals be without such a film?

I must note that these "exaggerated" musical biographies have been decried as cliche in some circles. After seeing just how many in Hollywood were made (No small number either!) I must admit to their disregard for unquestionable facts. Of course, this has never bothered me and I would suggest to anyone who rejects everything but omnipresent reality to read a book. Films are bigger than life  (environmentalists and other documentary-makers in general know this all to well). 

"Deep In My Heart" mystically tells of Sigmund Romanoff, the legendary composer of operettas and broadway musicals who composed such works as The Student Prince and Maytime. Jose Ferrer heads the film's cast as Romanoff, narrating part of the story. Best remembered for his 1950 Academy Award winning potrayal of Cyrano de Borgrac, the Puerto Rican actor played the role beautifully as the  stoic, idealistic composer who encounters one trial and romp after another.
Sigmund is a young man, he works in an uneventful little café. The film slides along with comfortable ease. The first half of the movie was particularly focused on his early successess on Broadway, and humorously portraying the mis-adventures of a young man who wanted to compose only distinguished works and vies for creative control. Though he himself quits after plenty a show, being utterly disgusted with the vulgar, unsophisticated work he is forced to do by a demanding public and his boss, and despite his dislike for the productions, however, the fame and mouth-wateringly sizable checks alway convince him to do another.

One time he managed to convince his producers to put on an operetta he wrote, Maytime. It turned out to be a tremendous hit with companies playing it all over the US.

His wish for creative control plummeted toward limit and turned down the production of Jazza-Doo with Al Jolson to go on his own to produce his kind of show: dignified, sophisticated, probably even philosophically motivated. Nobody liked it. So the production bombs, leaving him in debt, his idealist values hurt, and marching into his producers office and nobly apologizing and offering his services for Jazza-Doo. The producers rapidly accept.

To work on their new masterpiece, they go skipping to the country-side, and vow never to cease slaving on it. So much for that! Sigmund meets love...and her stiff, snobbish mother who disapproves of Sigmond's unpolished work.

During one of the most memorable moments in the film-my personal favorite-he performs the show all himself while an over-joyed producer and an utterly shocked mother and daughter duo sit frozen watching. It's hilarious and truly one of the most delectable segments I've ever seen in a musical. Jose did a good job pulling it off.

His romance doesn't go as planned and so we drift forward a year where he is still a success, still vies for the same girl...who shows up and takes over his narrative part.

This pivotal moment is an interesting element showing great change and flexibility in Romanoff's own out-look on life. We see an eagerness to go on doing what he has been doing all his life. From hereon, the film takes on a heavy tone and samples the composer's mature, darker works.

The death of a friend, a rumor he is getting out of style, lead the film into deeper territory exploring the physiology of an aging artist, the depth and emotion in his music, and its influences. The film culminates as the aging Romanoff performs a concert at Carnegie Hall. This is reminiscent to the ending in The Benny Goodman Story.

I have concluded that he film was indeed nicely done, as only classic Hollywood could pull it off. In a fitting tribute, it will inspire in the viewer, respect for the man, and a deep, satisfying appreciation for the music!
A capital supporting cast worth mentioning includes Walter Pigeon, Paul Henried (Casablanca), Merle Traubel, and Jim Backus, among others. Out of 22 of the hit tunes and eleven Broadway shows they were borrowed from, MGM gathered some of its greatest stars to share the the tunes Romy penned. Guest stars include no less than Gene & Fred Kelly (his brother-he dances too), James Mitchell, Ann Miller, Vic Damone, Jane Powell, Cyd Charisse, Tony Martin, Rosemary Clooney (Ferrer's wife), and Howard Keel. Holy cow! What stars! Each had a number they could perform with flawless effort.

To rap up, Deep In My Heart is a sweet, funny, ultimately tender musical to be enjoyed by everybody, and I wish it could. It is a true delight!

Copyright 2012, 2014 by Robert Steven Mack (all rights reserved!)

Brave - A Pixar Film Review by Robert Steven Mack

Originally titled "The Bear and the Bow," this "Brave" was something unexpected for all of us in the family. "Brave" is Pixar's newest creation and is now in theaters. I remember reading up about the movie three or four years ago, along with another entry that Pixar was planning to produce - "Newt." "Brave", along with its cast, title, etcetera have fully emerged into the form of a powerful film that Pixar can be proud of. Of course, no one knew quite what the film would turn out to be. The story wasn't about some weird civilization unseen by man, nor did it have the wacky anti-heroes, heroes, villains, and heroines. Yet, we've seen this time and time again, brought to us and displayed in the most ingenious ways in the "Toy Story" films," Cars," and its action-packed sequel (different in tone than that of the comedy-drama of the original), "The Incredibles," "Finding Nemo," "A Bug's Life," and "Monsters Inc.". A few times Pixar has come up with something a little different - and perhaps cliche-shattering with the futuristic masterpiece "Wall-E" and the adventurous "Up." Similarly to those films, Pixar has created an odd-ball with "Brave." Somehow this one is even more ground-breaking than the latter two I mentioned. Not to get me wrong:  every film produced by Pixar so far, from their first wonderkind, 17 years ago, each and every film has been a treat for the imaginations of billions of fan! Each Pixar film has been unique, witty, creative, and well-rounded. This time, however, Pixar swallowed a huge mouthful (for not the first time either) but truly managed to create something brilliant. So, for the twelfth time in the past three decades, the world would wonder what the quirky and unpredictable master-minds of technology and pure imaginative story telling would concoct.

To begin with, "Brave" is darker and more grinding than the other Pixar movies. It evolves before our eyes on a slightly more mature level; this is clear from start to finish. The animation, a wonder of a rare beauty, displays the rugged Scottish hills and country-side of long ago, capturing the viewers with an essence of true submity. Scotland, a land of mystery that invites you to find your destiny, the 3D (though I was never a particular fan of the 3-dimensional world) breaks the barriers of imagination!

The audience is immediately introduced to a small but spirited red-headed girl (the name of which I will not give away for I do not intend to spoil it for you) who has been told of magical forces leading the seeker to his or her inevitable destiny. Fast-forward. Years later, she is a princess with a fun-loving but one-legged king for a father. One leg was chewed off when fighting a mystic bear.  Add three mischievous triplets for younger brothers and a mother who expects her to behave like a princess. A rift comes between her relationship with her mother when she is expected to marry one of the not-too-desirable princes from neighboring kingdoms. Of course, she takes things into her own hands, leaving her and her mother to fight - and, in the heat of the moment, do things that both would later regret. When out riding, she comes upon a witch's house whose inhabitant grants her help... leading to folly when her mother is turned into a bear, identical enough to the one that took dear old dad's leg!


...And so unfolds an adventure of triumph and adventure. Full of flawed-but-good-natured characters, mythical sidetracks, and enough wit to build up a well-rounded, "Brave" is a rousing motion picture that shimmers in Disney's fairy-tale tradition but aided with Pixar's innovative approach to film-making. Again, it is a fairy-tale with a more mature, darker tone, which is a breath to feel and is obvious to any viewer. Its beautiful, traditional Scottish music and brilliant score accompanying the ride underscores it as a story worth listening to. Curiously, "Brave" is not much of a romantic love story of any kind - quite baffling. Indeed, it felt as if the actors and actresses just changed their minds about that one. It is just a very nice, traditional and occasionally humorous story. Indeed, no "happy ever after" was needed!


As for me, I was so impeccably glad and relieved, "Brave" wasn't one of those pointlessly oppressed-female-rebel shenanigans about some bloody female oppressed by upbringing, who can do nothing but complain in endless cacophony and bash  to show how oppressed she is. Good grief! I've been seeing more and more of that idiotic nonsense that’s supposed to be eye-opening but actually does nothing but dampen the public’s mind, corrupt children into useless rebels (either that or needless goody-two-shoes) but does nothing to contribute to the growing history of cinema or civilization. In reality, it's just a nuisance. Fortunately, my worries with this film were in vain! True, our heroine is a spirited one who is inspired to find her true destiny - but there wasn't anything annoying or stupid in that. "Brave" somewhat resurrects the "Freaky Friday" mother-daughter relationship in a tiffy, putting them on the path to rediscovery and adventure. In sometimes darker, more hair-raising proportions, it will be particularly revealing to mothers and daughters who see the film together for years to come. Yet every character in the film is significant. The three boys with their endless mischief represent the boys of any age - as sneaky as they always will be. The father will represent the sturdy husband, strong, but libel to go off the rocker if his cool and collected queen doesn't step in and set things in order. All in all, this dimension of the story sets the example of how to come together and reach agreements in a civilized way.

As with all the Pixar films I've seen, I was indeed quite pleased with this one. Yet, I was surprised to see  - of all the Pixar films – this film has done worst at the box office. Also, the reaction had been mixed among critics. Both the poster and trailer suggested it would be a different film and that, of course, children under perhaps nine should likely not see it quite yet. It is also fair to assume that more girls will go see the film than boys given that the protagonist is female. Perhaps the historical mystic Scottish setting was too much for most kids 11 and up. Still, the critics’ reaction not being overwhelmingly positive is a different story and perhaps can also be explained. Pixar really dumped something novel on us viewers. Well, one can only hope "Brave" will have more luck at the Oscars. Regardless, "Brave" is a worthy edition to the Disney/Pixar family of comedies and adventures. This film is indeed quite brilliant - I would give it a 97/98 rating on a scale from 1-100!

Copyright 2012 by Robert Steven Mack (all rights reserved!)

Cole Porter's "Aladdin" (1958) - a review by Robert Steven Mack

Having a four-day weekend is always tough on us hard-working students. We have to know how to spend those days without a schedule: how do we start, and how do we finish it? I was strangely adamant about what I wanted to do, however. It was Friday, and I was glad I didn't have to wake up at the usual hour and endure the usual morning procedure. Not that I don't like it, you understand; for if you were to assume that, it would be entirely incorrect. It's just that I wasn't feeling up to it that day - as I also hadn't the day before that to be sure. It has been particularly trying that day as I would have normally been in school. So you can imagine how relieved I felt to be freely walking down Beverly Drive that day with my mother, at one time fishing through her bag for any one of her daily accessories.

Simply put, I was going to the William S. Paley Center formerly known as The Museum of Broadcasting or the Museum of Television and Radio. It is a place dedicated to preserving and acknowledging a medium of our society which has, since the twentieth century been so culturally significant to us. I like to go there whenever I can to view something extraordinary from its vast collection. Having just completed another Debbie Reynold's auction in December and currently getting ready for a Warner Bros. Television exhibit, the place would hardly fit the definition of busy. Apart from that everything in their television collection is in the process is being digitalized but we could still access what we wanted. Playing the Genie in an Aladdin musical, I wanted something to watch a TV show on that. That's where the fun began. The attendant helping us said they had a Cole Porter television play from 1958 taking place in China. I decided it would be interesting to view and asked for it.

Indeed, the Cole Porter version of Aladdin was a very different version than the well-known Disney film, yet very enjoyable and extremely well told. Between station breaks of the 90 minute musical I saw commercials from DuPont Chemicals -the play was a DuPont-sponsored Show of the Month. It's so refreshing to see the national pride and care people took in presenting television advertisements in those days. I noticed that DuPont did not treat the audience as the public, but as a customer.

The Porter version of the Aladdin musical showed a more mystic genie, an impetuous love-sick Aladdin, an uncle who wasn't his uncle at all but a cunning villain playing purely for power, and a loving mother constantly at worry...along with other fun, well played characters. Being the last musical Cole Porter would work on, the numbers are crisp, catchy, and wonderfully appropriate for the story telling its own version of Aladdin. In the cast is Cyril Ritchard, Dennis King, Basil Rathbone, Anna Maria Alberhetti, Geoffrey Holder (the Genie), Howard Morris, and Sal Mineo as Aladdin -plus the housekeeper from the original Parent Trap film playing Aladdin's mother. It is interesting to note that in those days they would use American and British actors to play most of the Chinese parts. It worked out well so I won't make needless discussions on that topic.

Though performed on stage once in the late fifties and released as an album a few times, this particular Aladdin show has never been released on home video or DVD. Luckily, it is available at the two Paley Media Centers in tourist-attracting cities , both New York City and Beverly Hills, CA. That my friends is a break for society! A final parting word of fact: After the show was finished, an advertisement came up announcing that the next DuPont Show of the Month would be on Charles Dicken's A Tale of Two Cites , also with distinguished actors and director and that Leave It to Beaver would not be playing that night due to the airing of this special. Now that's television at its best!

Copyright 2012 by Robert Steven Mack (all rights reserved!)