Movies – Page 3 – Auxiliary Memory

My Problem with the Terms “Evil” and “Free Will”

by James Wallace Harris, 11/8/23

Yesterday my friend Mike and I were talking about evil women characters in old movies. We both immediately thought of the character Ellen Berent Harland (Gene Tierney) in the 1945 film, Leave Her to Heaven. I told Mike that I had just read a review of Detour, also from 1945, that featured one mean woman, Vera, played by Ann Savage. The reviewer said she was the evilest woman in all of film noir.

This got me Googling the phase “evil women in the movies” and finding several lists: 25 Of The Best Female Villains You’ll Love To Hate, The Greatest Female Villians, 10 Awesomely Sinister Women in Movie History, Most Memorable Female Villians. Not to surprising, most of the films listed were recent. What was surprising, was most modern female villians are from fantasy, horror, or animated films. Mike and I were thinking about ordinary realistic women in films.

Mike texted me:

I make a distinction between evil and insane. For example, Kathy Bates in Misery, Jessica Walter in Play Misty for Me, and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction play characters that I consider insane, not evil. The Barbara Stanwyck character in Double Indemnity is not insane, just evil. The same goes for Gene Tierney in Leave Her to Heaven.

I texted back:

Evil is a slippery word for me. In the original religious term God was the source of all good and the Devil was the source of all evil. Being evil meant you were doing the work of the devil. It connotes that the person is a puppet of the devil. Or worshipping of the devil by doing the kind of things he wanted done. Being evil meant being devilish.

By the way, in the old days being insane meant being possessed by the devil. So judging someone evil or insane was close to the same thing.

In the modern sense of how we use those words it all relates to free will. An insane person has lost control of their free will. An evil person chooses to do evil.

But we have a problem. Recent research suggests no one has any free will.

Now, our fun conversation has turned serious, but I think valid. If we don’t have free will, how do we judge people we think are doing wrong? I just bought the book Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will by Robert M. Sapolsky but haven’t read it yet. However, I have been reading reviews and watching interviews with Sapolsky. What he’s saying is based on brain research that I’ve been reading about for years. We don’t have free will. The trouble is our moral and ethical structures depend on people either being sane and deciding on their own actions, or insane and out of control. What if we have no control over our actions at all?

The nightly news is full of people I’d call evil. What if we took a different approach to the problem. What if we say killing innocent children is evil no matter if you have free will or not. Does it matter if the evil person is consider sane or insane? Or has free will or not? What we’re horrified by is bad things happening to good people.

Modern films have made evil rather cartoonish by portraying the bad guy as over the top in their evilness. The films Mike and I were talking about, Leave Her to Heaven and Detour, are mundane portrayals of evil. I think the gigantic evils we see in the news, and the unrealistic portrayals of evil in modern movies, have made us forget the everyday type of evils. We no longer expect everyone to be honest and civil, and bad behavior is often claimed to be free expression and a personal right.

I don’t like what I see on the news, or in modern movies and television shows. And the behaviors I’m seeing on the freeways and while shopping is disturbing too. Maybe we don’t have free will, but we could at least act like we do. Maybe pretending to be good is all we can hope for.

I’m reminded of a science experiment I read about back in the 1960s where they put many rats in small confined cages to simulate overpopulation. The rats became violent, tearing at each other. I think that’s what’s happening to us today. Overpopulation is causing us to go mad. But that also supports the argument that there’s no free will.

Even though neuroscience is revealing there’s no free will, I wonder if free will isn’t something we could develop? Can we overcome genetics and conditioning? Is there some way we can consciously reprogram our unconscius minds. The reason why scientists say we have no free will is because they can measure brain activity happening before we’re consciousnessly aware of our choices and actions. Is there no way to condition our unconscious minds to act in the ways we consider ethical?

It’s obvious that any adult who follows the same beliefs they were taught as a child is not acting on free will. Most people believe what they are taught early in life. But if they radically change what they believe, is that a case of free will? If someone raised a Baptist grows up and spends many years trying out different religions, and ends up choosing to become a Zen Buddhist, is that free will?

When you watch movies think about whether or not the antagonist is acting on their own, or from genetics and conditioning. Do the same when you are watching the news. Does Putin have free will? The current war in the middle East is just like all the wars of history. Maybe we don’t change because we can’t.

Still, the idea of being able to change ourselves intrigues me. Science might prove we don’t have free will, but does that mean we should stop trying to change ourselves?

I’ve been paying attention to my dreams lately, so I’m getting to know my unconscious mind. I’m also working on developing good habits and breaking bad habits. And I think there are ways to reprogram how our unconscious minds function. If we could, wouldn’t that be an act of free will?

JWH

Vertigo (1958)

James Wallace Harris

Read the Wikipedia entry for a concise overview and evaluation of Hitchcock’s Vertigo — especially the sections “Reception.” When Vertigo was first released it got very mixed reviews, but over the years its reputation has risen. Some polls have even placed it as the best film ever made. Quoting this one paragraph should give you an idea of what I mean:

Over time the film has been re-evaluated by film critics and has moved higher in esteem in most critics' opinions. Every ten years since 1952, the British Film Institute's film magazine, Sight & Sound, has asked the world's leading film critics to compile a list of the 10 greatest films of all time.[83] In the 1962 and 1972 polls, Vertigo was not among the top 10 films in voting. Only in 1982 did Vertigo enter the list, and then in 7th place.[84] By 1992 it had advanced to 4th place,[85] by 2002 to 2nd, and in 2012 to 1st place in both the crime genre, and overall, ahead of Citizen Kane in 2nd place; in 2022, the Sight & Sound poll ranked Vertigo 2nd place.[86] In the 2012 Sight & Sound director's poll of the greatest films ever made Vertigo was ranked 7th.[87] In the earlier 2002 version of the list the film ranked 6th among directors.[88][89] In 2022 edition of the list the film ranked 6th in the director's poll.[90] In 1998 Time Out conducted a poll and Vertigo was voted the 5th greatest film of all time.[91] The Village Voice ranked Vertigo at No. 3 in its Top 250 "Best Films of the Century" list in 1999, based on a poll of critics.[92] Entertainment Weekly voted it the 19th Greatest film of all time in 1999.[93] In January 2002, the film was voted at No. 96 on the list of the "Top 100 Essential Films of All Time" by the National Society of Film Critics.[94][95] In 2009, the film was ranked at No. 10 on Japanese film magazine Kinema Junpo's Top 10 Non-Japanese Films of All Time list.[96] In 2022, Time Out magazine ranked the film at No.15 on their list of "The 100 best thriller films of all time".

If you haven’t seen Vertigo, you should go watch it before reading my reaction.

I’ve seen Vertigo twice in the past year, and it is a mesmerizing film. But what makes it great, or even the greatest? I love dozens of films, but I have no idea which one is best, even for me. How can critics think in terms of ranking films? By what criteria do they judge them? If you search on YouTube, you can find several documentaries and short films about Vertigo. Some people are quite passionate about this movie and what they see in it.

I know there is one thing missing from Vertigo, and maybe all Hitchcock films – and that’s an uplifting experience. His films are pure movie storytelling. There are no messages, no moralizing, no philosophy, no expressions about Art, and they aren’t studies in sociology. Some critics analyze them psychologically, but I’m not even sure they express anything consistent about psychology.

This summer, Time Magazine picked one hundred movies the editors considered the best to celebrate its one hundred years of publication. Three of Hitchcock’s films made the list, The 39 Steps, Vertigo, and Psycho. What qualities did the editors of Time and other list makers use to rank films?

I can’t answer that without months or years of study. What I can do is give my reaction to Vertigo. Is there something in my reaction or yours that points to the quality that makes films great?

On a simple level, Vertigo is a murder mystery, but the audience doesn’t know that until two-thirds way into the show. And then it doesn’t matter. The film starts with San Francisco detective John “Scottie” Ferguson (James Stewart) chasing a fugitive across rooftops. He jumps a gap, misses, and hangs by a gutter several floors above an alley. A uniform officer comes to help Scottie and falls to his death.

Next, we meet Scottie in the apartment of Marjorie “Midge” Wood (Barbara Bel Geddes). It’s a beautiful room overlooking San Francisco and the bay. Midge an artist who makes her living illustrating women’s underwear. Midge and Scottie were once briefly engaged. Stewart was 49 at the time, and Bel Geddes was 35. I found that age difference surprising. This scene is used to show how Scottie has become afraid of heights and the resultant vertigo. This is important to the plot, but I don’t think it’s important at all to the story.

Soon after that Scottie meets with his old college friend, Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore). Helmore is four years older than Stewart. He asks Scottie to tail his wife who is acting weird. Madeleine Elster is played by Kim Novak who is only 24. I also found this age difference hard to accept. I’ve even read that Hitchcock thought the age differences were a problem, but since many people consider this film about sexual obsession, and in recent years we’ve been learning about how obsessed Hitchcock felt over his female stars, it makes the age difference mean something. However, I doubt Hitchcock planned that.

Novak plays two characters, Madeleine Elster and Judy Barton, but moviegoers don’t know that until two-thirds way into the film. The first two-thirds of the movie is Scottie following Madeleine around and falling in love with her. It’s all rather mysterious.

There are two McGuffins in Vertigo. One is a murder mystery. Some critics have even called Vertigo a film noir. I think that’s bullshit. From my experience of watching the film three times, it’s all about lusting after Kim Novak’s characters. The second McGuffin is Madeleine’s obsession where she thinks she’s a reincarnated woman from the 19th century who committed suicide. The 1950s were full of weird psychological studies and stories like Bridey Murphy, The Three Faces of Eve, and Edgar Cayce. Starting in the late 1940s and through the 1950s, mental illness was a big theme in the movies. Madeleine’s obsession is colorful, but it’s another McGuffin.

That’s because Judy Barton is playing the role to help Gavin kill the real Madeleine. They are using Scottie’s fear of heights. Gavin and Judy make up this obsession to trick Scottie. It’s not real or valid.

The audience doesn’t know about this subterfuge, and that’s why I don’t think it matters. What we really enjoyed while watching the film is Jimmy Stewart chasing after Kim Novak. And we’re just as shocked as Scottie when we think we see her die. This is Hitchcock’s obsession – to surprise and shock his audience. He loves building suspense. Suspense and surprise are his core values.

Scottie goes through a year in a mental hospital helped by Midge. Of course, we wonder, why isn’t Scottie chasing after Midge? Then Scottie sees a woman who looks vaguely like Madeleine, but who claims to be a poor shopgirl named Judy Barton. Novak as Madeleine looked classy, Judy looked trashy. For the rest of the film, Scottie slowly convinces Judy to change her appearance to look like Madeleine while he woos her. Judy finds this creepy.

The audience and then Scottie learns that Judy is really the same girl who impersonated Madeleine. However, Scottie doesn’t turn her in. He’s obsessed with recreating Madeleine and recreating his experience of the murder scene. He tells Judy he wants to confront his fear of heights. Scottie becomes increasingly creepy, pushing Judy into doing things she doesn’t want to do. Personally, I felt sorry for Judy. Even though she committed a murder for money, she seems less amoral than Scottie. Yet, I’ve never seen any critic call Scottie amoral.

In the final scene, Scottie frees himself of his fear, but a nun scares Judy, and she falls from the same tower as Madeleine. Damn, in this movie, anyone that goes up several floors with Scottie falls to their death. And that’s three for three.

I love watching this film, but I don’t care about the story. I don’t care about the plot. I don’t care about who the characters are. All I love is the visuals, the cinematography, the sets, the costumes, the interiors, the street scenes, the cars. It’s all gorgeous. And I love looking at Kim Novak.

Is beautiful to look at a reason to make Vertigo one of the greatest films of all time? If I made a list of my favorite 100 films, I would include it.

But damn, I wish I could rewrite this story!

The story follows the point of view of Scottie. It should have followed the point of view of Judy. Then it would have been a true film noir murder mystery. Kim Novak would have had a deep character to play. Imagine how Judy would have gotten involved with the scheme and what it would have taken to pull it off. Think about all those details. Imagine, how afterwards Judy realized she had fallen in love with Scottie and let herself be found. Imagine how hard she would have wanted to be Judy and loved by Scottie, and how upsetting it would be to have Scottie remake her into the woman she murdered.

Hitchcock missed something big. The story was based on a novel, and the screenplay had to be rewritten several times. They should have rewritten it again.

JWH

If You Love Old Movies on TCM, Try Old Movies on YouTube

by James Wallace Harris, 10/20/23

Turner Classic Movies (TCM) is the gold standard for old movie lovers. Nothing beats it if you’re addicted to watching movies from the past. However, TCM doesn’t show every old movie, and I’ve found a great secondary source for films from yesteryear. YouTube (not YouTube TV) is another giant cinematic library. It’s not as convenient to use, and the quality varies greatly, but there are plenty of old movie gems there to see.

Warning: YouTube also rents and sells movies. I’m referring to films that are part of YouTube to watch for free.

I subscribe to YouTube Premium to avoid commercials, so I don’t know if I’m getting some content that’s not available to the free version of YouTube. I’m going to present several examples, so it should be a test of that. It also helps that you sign into YouTube with your free Google account so it can remember what you like. 99.99% of YouTube content is hidden away, but YouTube will follow what you like and recommend more of the same. Once I started watching old movies it kept offering me more. It’s well seems endlessly deep.

First, you need to have the YouTube channel added to your television. You can watch on your phone or table, but these movies look great a large screen TVs. YouTube app is available for most smart TVs, or for streamers like the Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV, etc.

Next, go to YouTube on your computer and find a movie you like — I’ll be linking to several. Hit the save button and create a folder called Old Movies. If you want to save movies by categories, create them now. You can’t create these folders from your TV, but you can save movies you find on your TV to these folders.

When you see a movie you might like, start playing it. Check the settings icon to see what resolution the film is using. Films loaded years ago tend to be 240 and 360. Avoid them. Lots of films are being uploaded at 1080p or 720p which is high resolution, like what’s on a Blu-ray disc. 480p is the quality of DVDs. Occasionally, you’ll see higher resolutions, but 480p, 720p, and 1080p are fine to great.

I tend to save films that look interesting as YouTube recommends them. Then I go to my Old Movie folder when I want to watch one. I’m not sure how long these films stay on YouTube, or even if they’re legal. My guess is some copyright holders or companies licensing the copyright of old movies are putting them up on YouTube to earn ad revenue, or a share of YouTube Premium revenue. Since I’m seeing more movies all the time, I’m guessing it’s becoming a feature. (By the way, you’ll also need to use your computer to delete the movies from your folders once you watch them.)

I often read about movies to find ones I want to watch. I check the JustWatch app on my iPhone to see where they are streaming. If the movie isn’t listed, I often I find them on YouTube. Evidently, movies first go to premium streaming channels, then to the ad-support streaming channels like Roku, Tubi, Pluto, etc. After that, they are in limbo. And some of those are showing up on YouTube.

I’m finding lots of movies on YouTube from American and British studios that don’t often appear on TCM. Movies I’ve wanted to see for years. Movies I used to buy on DVD.

There is one downside to movies on YouTube. Their Closed Caption is AI generated, and horrible. If you need to see the words on the screen, you’ll probably be disappointed.

Now for some examples. Links are to Wikipedia. Here’s a real gem, This Happy Breed (1944), about England between WWI and WWII, directed by David Lean.

I thought Mister 880 (1950) about Edmund Gwenn being a counterfeiter of $1 bills to be an afternoon feel good flick.

Here’s a less famous Alfred Hitchcock flick with Gregory Peck, The Paradine Case (1947). It’s quite good.

https://youtu.be/Zq6Tv3UvVQ4?si=fUNC3-k8GkXl7f0A

Here’s the first Mr. Belvedere film with Clifton Webb called Sitting Pretty (1948). It’s from a YouTube channel called DK Classics III — they have tons of great old movies. Clifton Webb made three of these Mr. Belvedere movies. The first two show up on TCM all the time, but I’ve never seen the third, Mr. Belvedere Rings the Bell (1951). I found it on YouTube, but sadly only in 360p. I still watched it, and liked it so much I bought the DVD. I’ve now watched several Clifton Webb movies on YouTube.

Here’s a film noir with Lucille Ball. Clifton Webb plays an evil art dealer in The Dark Corner (1946). It’s only in 480p, but nice enough. One thing that’s important is to read about these movies on Wikipedia. It got decent reviews when it came out, but over time, it’s considered a respectable film noir and has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Not all old movies are great, but some I want to see for a reason. Project Moonbase (1953) was the second film Robert A. Heinlein worked on as a screenwriter. The first being Destination Moon, which TCM shows often. I’ve never seen Project Moonbase though. And here it is at 720p.

https://youtu.be/uL9ciBDPyXA?si=nfXHrio6xZLS51vT

Susan and I are getting into old English movies. Here’s a fun romantic comedy with Vivian Leigh and Rex Harrison (his first film) called Storm in a Teacup (1937) about a reporter siding with a dog’s owner in a political brouhaha. It has the feel of a Frank Capra movie.

This should be enough to give you a taste of what I mean. These aren’t famous films, but they are fun to watch. If you’ve been watching TCM for decades, you might like to give YouTube a try and unearth some unseen treasures.

JWH

Remembering the Sixties in Two Bad Movies

by James Wallace Harris, 10/4/23

I’m always shocked by how much American society has changed since the 1960s when watching movies and television shows from that decade. I graduated high school in 1969.

I’m curious how people born after the 1960s picture it in their mind’s eye. I grew up in the 1960s and remember two versions of that decade. I mostly recall the pop culture 1960s that everyone learns about in history and from the media, but if I think about it, I remember another 1960s, one far more mundane, and quieter. The difference you might say between The Beach Boys in 1963, and The Beatles in 1969.

Over the last two nights, Susan and I watched two movies from the 1960s that reminded me of the less famous version of that decade: Boy, Did I Get a Wrong Number (1966) and Doctor, You’ve Got to Be Kidding (1967). Neither film was particularly good, but I found them both to be fascinating time capsules of that other 1960s.

Someone growing up in the 21st century would probably find both films stupid and even offensive. They would probably wonder where the smartphones, tablets, computers, and social media were, and why no one used certain now universal four-letter words routinely as adjectives, adverbs, and nouns. I’m sure they would think the acting stilted and why people fit into roles, especially gender roles. Those thinking a little deeper would wonder why all the famous 1960s pop culture was missing. But I think the thing that would standout the most, was the attitude both movies presented regarding sex. You’d think people living in the 1960s were Victorians.

Both Boy, Did I Get a Wrong Number and Doctor, You’ve Got to Be Kidding were about sex, but neither showed actual nudity or anyone having sex. Doctor is about Sandra Dee getting pregnant and three boyfriends wanting to marry her. None of the three had had sex with her. And the only reason we know Sandra Dee had sex with her boss, George Hamilton, was because the movie showed fireworks.

Boy is about Bob Hope, a late middle-aged real estate agent getting accidently involved with sexy movie star Elke Sommer, but not really. Elke Sommer plays a French actress famous for making movies where she takes bubble baths. She really wants to do dramatic roles and free herself from tub casting. Ironically, we see her taking several foamed covered baths in this film. 1966 is before they started having nudity in films, but it tries hard to show as much of Elke Sommer as possible. Boy, Did I Get a Wrong Number advocates good old fashion puritanical values while promoting itself with the allusion of sex.

I thought both films were accurate with the clothes, houses, furniture, and cars. The look of the other sixties does come across in these films. Even the lame jokes and goofy dialog gave off the right vibes for the times.

Both films were aimed at the silent majority but tried to appeal to the emerging youth culture. It’s strange how we see counterculture slowly take over Hollywood by watching old movies and television shows from the late 1960s and 1970s. Very few movies in the middle 1960s showed what was happening in the rock world, or counterculture. If they had rock music, it was generic instrumental shit. Hollywood lagged for several years recognizing the social impact of rock.

I remember seeing The Graduate in late 1967 and thinking how radical it was. The soundtrack used Simon and Garfunkel. That was tremendously exciting at the time because it felt like my generation was finally being recognized. However, seeing it recently was another shock. It wasn’t that radical at all, not how I remembered feeling it in December 1967. The Graduate was still much closer to that quiet version of the sixties than the infamous loud sixties. I see it now as a transitional film.

It wasn’t until 1969, with Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider, that we began to see that notorious version of the 1960s. I remember how shocking both films were when I saw them at the theater. But by then, my personal sixties were closer to those films. But in 1966 and 1967, my life was still like the Bob Hope and Sandra Dee flicks.

Another way to look at it was Hollywood was censored for showing real life for many decades, and finally in the late 1960s changes in the laws allowed it to portray a more real America.

I’m not sure any film captures the times in which they were made. They all create a mythic view. But I need to think about that. Are there any films from the 1960s that come close to how I lived in that decade? Do you have a film, from any decade, that you feel represents something close to how you grew up? I was too young, but I do remember people like the characters in America Graffiti. Actually, I remember people like the Bob Hope and Sandra Dee characters too. Maybe it’s the characters and settings that feel more historical than plots.

JWH

Hitting a Cognitive Barrier

by James W. Harris, 9/24/23

I crashed into a cognitive barrier trying to write my reactions to The Trouble with Harry and To Catch a Thief, two Alfred Hitchcock movies from 1955. After two drafts I realized I wasn’t getting where I wanted to go. I know I don’t want to write movie reviews — the perfect place to find them is Rotten Tomatoes. Nor did I want to describe a film — just go to Wikipedia or IMDB. I wanted to write an essay that captured what I got out of watching those films at age 71.

Time is running out, so I need to make the most of every experience. That involves understanding myself at a deeper cognitive level. One I’m finding harder to reach as I age. On the other hand, aging is giving me more wisdom. The cognitive barrier is being able to express what I’m learning by getting older. But aging is also wearing down my brain. What one hand giveth, another takes away.

Writing is thinking outside of the head. Thoughts are generated inside the head from emotional reactions. Thoughts are fleeting. Thoughts are like cream stirred into coffee, creating little patterns that quickly dissipate. Writing is about capturing that initial pattern and making sense of it by showing how it relates to the memories of millions of past patterns.

Very few people can describe exactly how they feel, and few of those people can explain why they feel the way they do. There are rare individuals that can compose their thoughts inside their heads and eloquently convey the results in speech. Most of us need to think outside our minds via writing and editing.

Even when we feel our written words are clear, readers seldom find clarity. Communicating with words is difficult at best and often impossible. What we think we’re expressing can often take a different path to each reader like those spaghetti strings we see in hurricane reports. I might believe I’m writing about Jacksonville, while some readers think I’m writing about Bermuda while others Miami and Charleston.

I enjoyed The Trouble with Harry better than all the other Hitchcock films we’ve watched this month, including Rebecca, Notorious, To Catch a Thief, and Strangers on a Train, films most critics admire a great deal more. However, I thought The Trouble with Harry had many flaws, but then Hitchcock is a flawed filmmaker.

How can I admire a movie that doesn’t measure well against the best movies I’ve seen over a lifetime? This gets into complexity and even multiplexity. I need to relate several reactions that contradict each other. The three films I admired and enjoyed the most this month have been The Trouble with Harry, Twelve O’Clock High, and Mr. Belvedere Rings the Bell. All three were feel-good movies to me, but they each made me feel good in a unique way. Is the word “feel-good” even useful? Many moviegoers might interpret the term “feel-good” so differently that these three movies would not fit their definition.

Should I even use the term? Shouldn’t I just describe exactly what I felt? Will that be clearer?

In my second draft I had a breakthrough. I realized to understand how I react to films I’d need to understand what I expected from them. But my expectations have changed widely over the years. And will my readers have the same expectations? It was then I realized that what I’m expecting from movies at 71 is different from my younger self. Even describing my own emotional experiences is a moving target. But explaining why that’s so hits another cognitive barrier.

I need to think about that.

Putting everything into words precisely is so difficult. Should I even try? I believe most people don’t because all they value is personal experience. Why tell anyone about our perceptions when they have their own?

Do you see why writing that essay became such a black hole?

JWH