long time, no see

...and brother, I mean that in so many ways. It has been a long "unintended" sabbatical for us here at the Shelf, but we've been itching to get back at it. There may be more breaks here and there, due to an increased teaching and work schedule and certain other constraints, but for now, bear with us and stick with us. We've missed you, missed our blogging friends, and missed being here. But let's dive into the order of the day.

Over the past few months, more and more films have been piling up on my DVR; my poor, poor DVR. I've had nary a chance to view many of them, but I take the time every now and then to check the TCM schedule and program several titles to record to watch later. It's always been the "watch later" part that has eluded me, especially of late. So I've decided to try and rectify that and make room on the old DVR for other movie goodness. Not by deleting them, but watching them (and then deleting those not worthy to be saved) and telling you about it. This will be a new feature that I have cleverly titled: "From the DVR Files". Short reviews, maybe a note or two about the film and then a final verdict: Do I save it on the DVR for additional viewing, Watch and Delete or Don't bother, Delete now. Or maybe I need to have it in my permanent library on DVD. Who knows? We'll find out today. And then you can chime in with your own opinion in the comments section.

Today's inaugural installment of "From the DVR Files" will kick off with perhaps a lesser known title from some famous stars.


Casefile #1: The Jackpot
Stars: James Stewart, Barbara Hale, James Gleason, Natalie Wood
Directed by Walter Lang
Studio: 20th Century Fox

The Film: Stewart and Hale play average suburban couple Bill and Amy Lawrence. They are the average couple- a house, two kids, a dog and neighbors to socialize with in the 'burbs. By day, Bill is an executive at a department store with a very demanding boss, trying to get the big promotion. Like everyone else, they have financial concerns, and maybe a little ambition to keep up with their neighbors. Then one evening, Bill receives a call from a radio show asking him to be home during a certain evening to take part in a contest over the phone with the chance to win a huge jackpot: $24,000. The Lawrence's friends and neighbors turn out to witness Bill answer the questions correctly and win the jackpot! Even though things are looking up, soon Bill, and eventually Amy realize that the "jackpot" isn't all it's cracked up to be; it's not $24,000- it's cash and prizes valued at $24,000. And the prizes don't always fit neatly into their average suburban home, or neighborhood for that matter. Some of the prizes are nice and useful, and some of them are downright crazy. Eventually the Lawrences figure out that this jackpot may end up costing more than they realize, as they have to sell some of the prizes to pay off the taxes. Sometimes your "lucky day" becomes a big pain!

This is a neat little film that fits perfectly into the era in which it was made, the 1950s- suburbia, radio quiz shows, teenagers (Natalie Wood plays the Lawrence's teenage daughter) always on the phone: it's almost like a page right out of 1950's culture. We tend to remember Stewart now more for the Westerns or War pictures, and especially for those classics like The Philadelphia Story or It's a Wonderful Life. But he was also well known and loved by audiences in comedies were he played the slightly harassed, slightly exasperated, yet lovable and earnest family man. This is such a film. A light comedy that moviegoers of the 1950s would've readily identified with, The Jackpot is an enjoyable B film that almost seems like an extended episode of a show like Father Knows Best or even I Love Lucy. (Indeed the plot has been visited again in many a sitcom, most memoriably in The Andy Griffith Show, when Aunt Bee won a Game Show and had to sell many of the prizes to afford the taxes and fees.) Stewart is pitch perfect as Bill Lawrence and in some ways the chartacter almost seems like a typical "Jimmy Stewart" character. Barbara Hale is equally fun and shows some comic flair as Amy. Hale, of course, would go on a few years later to play her most famous role as Della Street in the Perry Mason show and movies.

The support cast is excellent as well, if perhaps, underutilized, in the film. Natalie Wood has a supporting role as the young teenage daughter, Phyllis. Fred Clark plays Bill's ill tempered boss, Mr. Woodruff. Clark was a veteran character actor from many television shows, and is better known for his role as the Burns' ill-tempered neighbor, Harry Morton in The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show. The always great James Gleason plays Bill's newspaper reporter friend Harry Summers. The writing can be a bit tedius at times, but the script is well done and paces well- not drawing out too many gags or scenes. The one exception would be the scene where Bill is actually on the phone trying to answer the questions. It might have been drawn out to add to the tension, but Stewart and Hale add a bit of gentle comic nervousness to light the mood. You will see familiar faces, familiar plotlines and funny scenes, and familiar formulas. In fact, perhaps it is the "familiar-ness" that has made it more of a lesser known film- just another type of 50s family comedy. But sometimes it is the familiar gentle comedic film, that becomes just the right thing to enjoy on a bad day to brighten your spirits.

Even though this is almost a forgotten film in someways today, and considered a "b" family comedy, The Jackpot has an excellent cast and very good script, with many funny moments throughout the film. It may not be worth multiple viewings, but it is definitely a film to sit back and enjoy and escape with, much like you would with a favorite and familiar episode of a best loved sitcom from the 1950s. You will enjoy it the first time, and maybe revisit it years later if you catch it on television, but probably no more than that.

The Verdict: Check it out, and delete after watching.
Case closed.

Stay tuned for more from The Shelf- meanwhile visit our Facebook page and "like" us on Facebook.



They might detatch your salary.
Then I'll quit my job and live on soup.

film review: the dark knight

Update: Welcome to new readers from Dirty Harry's Place. And thanks to DH for the link. You've been a Shelf fave for a long time; we've linked to DHP since the beginning. Good Stuff that is a daily read. So please stick around and try out the archives and feel free to comment and jump in on the discussion!

I went to see the new Batman film, The Dark Knight. This is not a traditional film review, per se- but one with a commentary. Lord knows, you've probably seen plenty of the film reviews out there. Besides being an all- around film fan and classic film geek, I was a comic book geek in a previous life. Long-time Shelfers will remember how I love the Superman flicks, and was excited about Superman Returns. In the end, however, I was ultimately disappointed but what the film wasn't. I still think Superman II was the last great one. I liked some of the Batman films, but to me some of the animated series caught the character much better than the flicks. Tim Burton did OK with the first one, but everything after that was like watching your favorite Snowman melt: slowly, but surely, everything you liked about it just ebbed away.

Then came Batman Begins, which I thoroughly enjoyed. It still felt like it lacked...something, but it was definitely a step in the right direction. No apologies for taking out the bad guys, an origin story and a great cast. In fact, Christian Bale was great and Gary Oldman and Michael Caine were inspired bits of casting. Now comes The Dark Knight. I am not trying to be over the top, or anything, but when I say it's a masterpiece, I am using my words carefully. Forget all the posthumous Oscar talk for now- who knows how the Academy will look at this film, if they even consider it, given their recent track record. For now, just forget about the Oscars, and just think about this- The Dark Knight is everything a Batman movie should be, and everything the previous Batman flicks didn't get right.


Director Christopher Nolan has pulled together one of the best films, not just superhero film, of the year. The Dark Knight, like the great Iron Man flick, ventures out of the comfort zone and forces the viewer to think and to ask questions. Sure it provides the great suit and great gadgets, but these two films have a hero who has to ask - what being a really hero is all about and what defines making a difference. The Dark Knight has stepped up the superhero drama and provided a test of wills in a real world setting about real world problems. You cannot watch the film and not think about the post 9/11 world we live in and how we fight the bad guys who cannot be reasoned with, and the bad guys within who can be bought off. In fact, there is no stylistic, crazy looking Gotham city. The backdrop looks like every other huge metropolis. Perhaps that was the point- not to distinguish Gotham apart as a dark fantasy land, but to reinforce the idea that this could be, and in a way has been, us.


There is no Batcave this time (Wayne Manor burned down last film, and they allude to the fact that it is being rebuilt in this one), there is no flashbacks to Bruce Wayne's tragic past. He is Batman- he knows what he is and what he has to do. He also makes the hard choices and takes the consequences when lesser men cannot. To paraphrase Oldman's Police Commissioner Jim Gordon at the end of the film: "Batman is not the hero Gotham wants, but the hero Gotham needs." I know some commentators and politicos have been talking about the film in relation to terrorism and Bush, etc. I don't know how else to say it, but some of them are right. I don't want to make this political, but the film is very much tapped into where we are now, but also still evokes ageless themes. The Dark Knight presents some of the same choices that our real world is throwing at us right now- do we appease a madman, because he says he'll stop killing? Can we truly handle the sacrifices necessary to stop the madmen and bad guys of the world? Can we have faith in our fellow man when it seems everyone is out for themselves? Can we allow the good guys to do their job, even if it isn't quick and neat without casualties? What kind of world do we really want to live in and is peace merely the absence of violence- or is it a peace of heart, being able to live strong making the right choices and knowing that good will out in the end- if we stand up for it? In a way, The Dark Knight continues the themes and discussion started by 300.


Heath Ledger's Joker is one of the best performances where an actor has taken an iconic part and completely inhabited it and made you forget anyone else had the role before. All of the praise is warranted- he is the standout performance in the film. But then again - so was Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, Michael Caine as Alfred and Morgan Freedman as Lucius Fox. Heck, everyone was great- but this was a turning point to be sure for Ledger. If this is where he was headed as an actor, then we lost a great one on the cusp of some really great performances. His Joker not only redefines the role and reinforces what he was conceived to be, but it also is the perfect foil to Bale's Batman. This is one of those rare instances where I disagree with Leonard Maltin's take and agree with Roger Ebert (read their reviews). The evil that the Joker represents isn't about money, or even power- it is uncompromising. It is destructive and resents that which is good. Even the Joker acknowledges to Batman that he doesn't have any rules- he is chaos personified. He even manages to take the crusading district attorney Harvey Dent, (Aaron Eckhart) and push him to the brink and create the classic villain Two-Face.


But trust me this isn't a "Batman versus several costumed villains" flick. Batman isn't about the camp- it's more about the heart and philosophy of good versus evil; personified by the choices and actions of the characters- not their costumes. The best way I can describe it is- the story and flow is organic. Even the introduction and story arc of Two Face is integral and organic to the larger story. The Joker is the real villain, and taking down evil isn't going to be pretty. Some particular scenes are very strong. Although Ledger dominates every scene he's in, Oldman is a fantastic presence. Towards the big climax of the film, even the average citizen making a life and death choice in the ferry scene is so powerful as to have you wondering how things are going to play out. Look for a great small performance by Tommy "Tiny" Lister as a prisoner on the ferry that will have you second guessing what you think will happen.

The rest of the supporting cast is great. Nolan not only pulled off a brilliant directing job and screen writing job (with his brother Jonathan), but he inhabits the cast with some great performances. These are pros turning in a great job in small roles: Anthony Michael Hall, Michael Jai White, William Fitchner, Nestor Carbonell, Monique Curnen and Eric Roberts. (Yep, that Eric Roberts. Excellent as a mob boss.) All in all it is a fantastic movie. One worth seeing several times, and one that deserves a great DVD release with all the bells and whistles so you can enjoy it again and again.


It's not often that I step out of my comfort zone of classic film and write about current flicks, but this film warranted it. I am really enjoying this year's popcorn cruncher bonanza. Indy 4 and Iron Man were great rides (although I have qualms about the Indy 4 ending) and I am excited to see Hellboy 2 (another favorite), The Mummy, Tropic Thunder, and even the new Bond flick Quantum of Solace, which had a great trailer attached to The Dark Knight. (Two other great flicks that had trailers before The Dark Knight that look to be great are Ridley Scott's Body of Lies and Zach Snyder's Watchmen.) It's just turning out to be a fun and action packed popcorn movie summer.


The Dark Knight is a solid 5 stars- go see it. In the theater. You won't be disappointed.



Some men aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

bienvenue à cannes

Tomorrow, May 16th, will mark the beginning of the 60th annual film festival in the south of France known as Festival de Cannes. Producers, finance companies, actors, critics, and more will be converging on Cannes from all around the world. There will be parties, glamour, financing deals and... oh, yeah,...films. Festival de Cannes was founded in 1939, partly in response to the involvement of the Italian and German fascist governments running things at the Venice film festival. The first President was Louis Lumière, and it was set to begin on September 1st, 1939. However, as students of history will recognize, that was a fateful day. September 1st, 1939 marked the beginning of Hitler's invasion of Poland and the outbreak of World War II.
The festival was put off during the war and began again in 1946. In the beginning the festival was small and primarily featured European films. In fact, some years the festival was canceled due to a lack of funds. In 1968, the festival found itself at the center of controversy as students and leftists came out in massive protests against the French deGaulle administration's further involvement in University affairs. Labor groups soon joined them in strike and a good portion of France was shut down for several days. In solidarity with the students, several jury members and key participants had the festival canceled.

In recent years, American films have had a much larger presence at the festival, and more celebrities have become attendees. The festival is largely about showing your current film, that may not have a mainstream audience and at the same time wheeling and dealing to finance your next film. Several prizes are highly sought after, including the Prix du Jury (Jury Prize), the Grand Prix (Grand Prize) and especially the Palme d'Or (the Golden Palm). Today, over 300,000 actors, producers, directors and other film professionals gather at the annual festival.

In honor of it's 60th anniversary, Turner Classic Movies is premiering a new documentary on Cannes. Produced and directed by Richard Schickel. Entitled Bienvenue à Cannes, the documentary explores the history and the impact of the festival on international cinema. Wolf and I were able to view the documentary this weekend. Since what we say was a rough cut, we'll focus on what we saw and it's content, knowing that some technical features and perhaps some content will have been polished for the final cut.
The film mainly consists of interviews of actors and actresses, some directors like Martin Scorsese and Clint Eastwood, producers like Harvey Weinstein with Miramax, and many journalists and critics, including A.O. Scott, Roger Ebert and Kenneth Turan. It also features interviews with past Presidents, publicists and others involved with putting on the Festival. The film premieres Wednesday the 16th at 8 pm (est) and again at 11:15 PM. We'll give you our take of the documentary, with both my perspective and Wolf's perspective.


Wolf's take:

Being a rough cut, I fully expect some problems in this program to be fixed by airtime. The problem is that the issues that should be fixed won't be. I watched this expecting a documentary. As a documentary it was poor. Most documentaries explain the origins of its subject and give details of major events and landmarks in its history. This isn't done very well in this program. Cannes veterans tell some good stories. There is some decent vintage footage of festivals past but when I finished watching this, I knew very little of how the Cannes film festival began and the same amount about major events of it's past. There are even some folks interviewed which cause you to think: "Who is this and why do I care what they have to say?" Some of the new faces you will see are festival officials and organizers who are quite relevant, but they add no more than additional stories of days past. Frankly there are very few folks interviewed who lend a documentary atmosphere to the program. It seemed to be less of a documentary and more of a commentary or a collection of memories shared by participants past and present.

The truth is, as a commentary this program was passable and also revealing. One thing to really stand out was a comment made by a critic from TIME magazine. He said, "The first thing someone from the OUTSIDE should know about Cannes is they're not invited. Cannes is a class culture. You are given different kinds of colored cards to determine your IMPORTANCE." He goes on to explain that he has 'carte blanch' at the festival because he has "a white card". He throws in a little smug with this comment for flavor. Following this comment was Philip Lapote of the New York film festival selection committee who said that Cannes is "filled with humiliations". He then compares it to Buddhism saying that it causes people to "lose their ego". Huh? Sounds to me like some are deflated as others are well fed. Hypocrisy abounds as many who are interviewed lament about how much hard work the festival is. Not the preparation and the take down, but the actual viewing of films, interviews, and judging. That would've been remotely believable until one or two segments later a portion of the program was dedicated to the wild parties and drinking that goes on EVERY night. It's mentioned that so much drinking goes on at night that some folks show up to the morning meetings well hung-over and sometimes still intoxicated. People reminisce about parties past and how wild they were. A story is told of how they all partied so hard one night that during an 8:30 showing of one of the films, someone was snoring so loudly that someone had to wake the person up and tell them to "Stop snoring. You're waking the rest of us up." Sounds like just good ole' "hard work" to me. Oh and the morning meetings that people were showing up to while still drunk...they started at 10 AM or so.

Martin Scorsese tells us that a few days into the festival that most people are ready for it to end and don't even care about the last movies in the competition. It's even alluded to that some of the 'jurors' are semi-inebriated while deciding who earns awards. That kinda' takes the weight out of that little " Winner of the (blank) award at the Cannes Film Festival" tag we see on some movie covers, doesn't it. Watching some of the "films" submitted and being able to find their hotel rooms at the end of the day sounds like the hardest work. Politics are shown to play apart at Cannes as well in this special. Politics has been a decider in awarding prizes at Cannes for a long time. Big surprise, huh? If you watch this program expecting a documentary, then you may be disappointed. If you despise the phoniness, elitism and other problems with the modern filmmaking society, then you will enjoy the confirmation that this program gives you of your opinions.

Loophole's take:


Publicist Dennis Davidson stated in the documentary, “One of the things the Cannes Film Festival does is balance a great deal of different needs. Ultimately it’s a film festival that deals with cultural films, films in different languages, films that have a very limited commercial appeal. And layered on top of that are the big Hollywood films and big Hollywood stars.” Like Wolf, I walked away from the film wondering if the festival was anything more than a self-congratulatory, networking, week-long party. In the past, I think Cannes did a much better job at bringing unknown films to a forum. Now, Hollywood has crept in and so has politics to a degree. I am afraid the same thing has begun to happen at Sundance. Ultimately, a film is about different visions; that of a director, a screenwriter, producers and the actors, and how best to blend those into something resembling a story. I love independent movies and international films. However, aside from Asian cinema, it's difficult to find any that I really love anymore.

What I thought singularly refreshing about Richard Schickel's film is how direct, forward and balanced it seemed to be about Cannes and it's place in cinema today. Each segment had differing opinions and you had as many people lamenting the loss of the old days and how money has become dominant, as much as you had others lauding it for its glamour and importance in financing projects. I think that the film would have benefited from more context, perhaps in the form of a narrator. I know that the "narrator form" is kind of overused. However, in this situation there were times were I wondered if anyone in the audience would keep up with some of the things the commentators were discussing. How many people are going to understand the riots and strikes in France in 1968, and how it related to Cannes? In that instance, I believe a narrator to provide context would have added to the film. Again, we saw a rough cut, so we hope some of the issues have been resolved.

Final Assessment:

Overall, we both thought that the film could have used more context (I thought in the form of a narrator) and perhaps less talking heads. Wolf took issue with some of the commentary involved, and I thought that while there was too much commentary, it seemed to be more balanced than I expected. But in the end, I think we both agree that Cannes presents some problems, and the film took more of a realistic view of its history and what it amounts to today. I think you'll be interested to watch the film and learn more about Cannes. I think you'll enjoy the accompanying films a well. TCM is presenting a full slate of past films shown at Cannes. Here's the schedule (all times are est):

Wednesday, May 16th:
8:00 pm: Bienvenue à Cannes (2007)
9:30 pm: The Cranes Are Flying (1957)
11:15 pm: Encore of Bienvenue à Cannes (2007)
12:45 am: Blow-Up (pictured above) (1966)
2:45 am: Viridiana (1961)
4:30 am: The Conversation (1974)

Thursday, May 17th:
8:00 am: The Mystery of Picasso (1958)
9:30 pm: The Clay Bird (2002)
11:15 pm: Never On Sunday (1960)
1:00 am: Crossfire (pictured above)(1947)
2:30 am: Lili (1953)

Shelfers will particularly want to not miss Blow-Up, The Conversation, The Mystery of Picasso and Crossfire. Check out Bienvenue à Cannes and learn more about the world of international cinema, both yesterday and today. And please come back and let us know what you think in the comments section.

Thanks to Turner Classic Movies for images.




Okay, where were you when he needed you? Maybe you were someplace having beautiful thoughts. Well, I wasn't. I was in a stinkin' gin mill, where all he had to do to see me was walk in, sit down at the table and buy me a drink.

views and reviews on 300

Wolf and I have both seen 300 and have been knocked out by such a great piece of film making. However, I have been gathering my thoughts on the film, and yet have been reluctant to comment on it; especially with so much back forth going on out in the ether. From television, to radio and newspapers, and especially on the web- it seems everyone has something to say about the film. In such cases, I often hesitate to add something, just because I feel someone out there has said it better than I could have.
That being said I do want to add a couple of words- and direct you to a couple of excellent articles which I believe really tackle and discuss the merits of the film, and in a way discuss why it is being accepted by audiences and rejected by critics and cultural elitists. (and yes, sometimes they are one and the same, but I make the distinction here to include the non-critic talking heads that pop up on TV). This is sort of a roundup on the views and reviews I've seen on 300 that I believe really "get it".

First off:
Christian Johnson over at Cinerati, has written two of the best articles on the whys and why nots 300 has been recieved or rejected, and understanding it in terms of both it's origin from the greek ideals and the graphic novel storytelling aspect . They are worth reading. An excerpt:

"One of the classical virtues is that of thumos a kind of spritedness which combines patriotism and courage. It is the virtue that is central to the Spartan society. In fact, Spartan society might be said to value thumos over almost any other part of virtue as we understand it. Spiritedness is a powerful force in people, we like to take pride in our society and we value those who fight to defend it. That is thumos in a nutshell and that is what 300 is about. The film doesn't spend time showing us the ways that Sparta was unjust, and they were in many ways, because then the film -- and comic -- would be about Sparta. This film isn't about Sparta, it is about thumos."
Read the whole article here and a previous excellent article here.

Then the gang over at Libertas have offered a review and several articles that you can read: here, here, and here.

Of course, Victor Davis Hanson offered some excellent thoughs on history and 300 here and here. An excerpt:
Many of the most famous lines in the film come directly either from Herodotus or Plutarch's Moralia, and they capture well, in the historical sense, the collective Spartan martial ethic, honor, glory, and ancestor reverence (I say that as an admirer of democratic Thebes and its destruction of Sparta's system of Messenian helotage in 369 BC). Why—beside the blood-spattering violence and often one-dimensional characterizations—will some critics not like this, despite the above caveats?
Ultimately the film takes a moral stance, Herodotean in nature: there is a difference, an unapologetic difference between free citizens who fight for eleutheria and imperial subjects who give obeisance. We are not left with the usual postmodern quandary 'who are the good guys' in a battle in which the lust for violence plagues both sides. In the end, the defending Spartans are better, not perfect, just better than the invading Persians, and that proves good enough in the end. And to suggest that ambiguously these days has perhaps become a revolutionary thing in itself.


I would only add my following comment to the above: The cultural elitists own worldview tends to make them look askew at one of the most artistic films I have seen in recent memory. There is no coincidence that academia has seen a decline in the offering of classical liberal arts education and degrees. As one professor once told me, "It's called ancient for a reason. Their ideas are dusty- we are more interested in the modern and post modern. The hold more for us." Undoubtabley so. The post modern holds so many tiny nooks and crannies within which one can claim expertise and obscure wisdom , and yet at the same time pass judgement and claim moral relativistism. Ancient and classical history and literature is so often disdained in academia that now it has started to go full circle, and there is an effort to bring it back, much to the chagrin of some history professors who look at political and military history in general as passe and dangerous.

IF you think I'm just flapping my gums about the vapid, self-absorbed post modernists, then read Dr. Sanity's excellent article here on why the post-modernists (in a nutshell, cultural elitists) are in an uproar about this film. An excerpt:

Once upon a time intellectuals who sought to understand the modern world looked to the giants of intellectual thought from humanity's past. In the wisdom of their writings we would be able to find the words and meanings relevant to analyzing the events of today. But now, it is as if history has been turned upside down. We no longer look to the past to understand ourselves and our journey--instead we use our present feelings and our modern understandings and prejudices to reinterpret and deconstruct the past.
...That this rather perversely condescending and ultimately nihilistic tendency is a direct result of the essential narcissism of our times there is no doubt. Only a narcissist of the most pathological sort could or would haughtily dismiss Plato or Aristotle as merely primitive Greeks; or reject the writings of a Thomas Jefferson or John Adams because they were white male slaveholders. Only a self-absorbed postmodernist who believes he has all the answers to not only current problems, but that his superior and perfect intellect has nothing to gain by considering the admittedly imperfect thinkers and ideas of the past.
Read the whole article.

If you haven't seen 300, I would recommend it. But be warned, you may just come out of the film wanting the bad guys to lose and the good guys to win. And the cultural elitists can't have that.



A new age has come, an age of freedom. And all will know that 300 Spartans gave their last breath to defend it.