[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGiPiDnA4c?wmode=transparent&autohide=1&egm=0&hd=1&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&showinfo=0&showsearch=0&w=500&h=375]

BALL OF FIRE (1941)

starring Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper. Released by R.K.O.

I just saw this movie and consider it the “crowd-pleasing” kind. It entertains as it exaggerates the stereo-types of it’s era. From the 1940s, and all about style—-of speech. It’s a comedy-crime-romance about a group of daffy professors living together like the 7 dwarfs in the story of “Snow White” because they are hard at work, writing new encyclopedia entries. And, one of them decides to write about the funny slag words that many were using at the time, and to do this, a shady, wise-cracking club singer becomes his subject of study. It’s almost like a 1940s twist on the “Snow White” fairy-tale, except funnier and with jazz music!

NOTE: In addition to the excellent stars of this film, it is worth seeing for it’s top-notch supporting cast, featuring some of the finest character actors of the time! One even went on to become the voice of Droopy the dog in the MGM cartoon shorts, if I’m not mistaken.

8/10.

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/)

Film: the highest art-form

(via Madame Grès)

After browsing images within THE RED LIST (a website devoted to the visual arts), one thing struck me like a canon—-a movie is the hub of it all!

Fashion stands alone as visual, paintings stand alone as visual, architecture, design, photography—-all visual. But, if you’ll notice, all of these visual arts can be found in film, which is, itself, a visual art. So, could it be that film is the most elevated of all art-forms? It’s quite a heavy statement to make, but I think so! In fact, dance is the closest think to matching movies in that way, being that it can be audible, visual, and narrative.

However controversial it may be to claim that film is the most advanced art-form, there is no denying that it is the most in-depth. Hence, just looking at this 1940s fashion photo by designer, Madame Gres, one can totally envision this as a movie-still!

So then, is it any wonder that films seemed to have started off more primarily concerned with visual art than with narrative? Take the comedians of the silent era, for example. The sketches that Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, and Charlie Chaplin were in were designed to make you laugh. The story was secondary, a mere device which may or may not have been developed for the sole purpose of enhancing the quality of what was seen.

By the same token, when the sound era finally came along, arguably the most successful genre was the musical. Again, the story would have been comprised to incorporate elements of the visual, not the other way around.

So, what does all this have to do with the photo included  with this article? Well, the photo, along with this article, illustrates how easily we associate certain visual art with the movies, even when a certain image  is not necessarily part of  that niche.

The people of the first 60 or 70 years of the industry seemed to anticipate this tenancy and called upon all the best fashion designers, choreographers, musicians, and even cosmetologists, like the legendary Max Factor, to come and enhance the field of film. That strategy worked so well, that now, it is virtually impossible to dissociate the other art-forms from it, even when they are done independently of the medium.

One easy way to describe it is  that movies are a means-to-an-end, meant as a way of evoking all art, absolutely, once, for all, and for all time.  That is why film-preservation is so important. Because it’s about so much more than the obvious—-hence that picture up there.

But, make no mistake. I do not wish to imply that film is simply the representation of other art-forms. No, quite the contrary is true. In fact, the most important thing to remember about this whole discussion is that movies have not only benefited from the other arts, but that the other arts have benefited from them as-well. And, the fashion industry is definite proof of that—-hence, that picture up there.

So, anyone with a taste for the arts must thereby appreciate the film industry for inadvertently helping to keep all the elements alive. This, to me, is what makes it the highest art-form.

NOTE: If you’re a lover of all art-forms and would therefore like to support film-preservation efforts, you may do so here.

Auntie Mame (1958)

Auntie Mame is my most favorite film character ever—-both from this movie and the musical. As a person, she was just wonderful to experience in screen!

And, though I love both the musical and this one, I’m going through a tremendous Roz Russell faze right now, so I’d say this is my absolute # 1 favorite movie!! ♥

The Incredible Shrinking Woman (1981)

A film with a strong message of precaution, cloaked in campy comedy!

I remember first seeing the movie when I was very young, and hadn’t seen it again until about a week ago. I’m in my 20s, so it was already considerably a classic by the time I saw it anyway. I had forgotten just how much I enjoyed the movie. And, it may well be that I enjoyed it more as an older person than I did when I was a kid. Because I can understand some of the humor that would have went straight over my head all those years ago. And thinking about it these days, I would say that that is the real beauty of the film — that it manages to be both naughty and nice, in a very subtle, understated way.

I also loved that it had a campy, yet natural appearance about it. So many highlights and undertones of the film, like an abstract painting. I especially love the way the beginning scenes of the film establishes the setting as a part of worry free America, dreamy suburbia, it put me on cloud nine just watching the first scenes! You got the sense that Pat Kramer lead a very happy-go-lucky life, that her and her husband weren’t overly romantic nor were they overly serious or in a rut. They just had fun with each other and loved each other. I also got the sense that the children (albeit a little spoiled) were allowed to be children. And although the message was supposed to be one of inverted idealism, the way I experienced those scenes as the viewer was bliss! So, I commend the film for not being too “on the nose” about its message, while still getting the point across.

It wasn’t a preachy sort of film, but there was definitely a moral to it. To me, the moral seems to be a cautionary tale against the dangers of greed and materialism. But, what I love about the way the film presents it is that it doesn’t make materialism seem all bad. On the contrary, you get the sense that life is indeed easier with certain items on hand, and a certain way of being. So, when considering the moral of the story along with the easy breezy feeling that the viewer gets in the opening scenes of the film, the message seems to be one of precaution, but not prohibition. Because nowhere in the film did they say that TV and perfume or any of that stuff was bad. In fact, they didn’t even really imply it. Furthermore, they sort of embraced it at certain points!

So, yes, I like the film for being moral but not preachy. It seems to say “There’s nothing wrong with having a little fun. There’s nothing wrong with taking it easy. Just don’t overdo it.” And for me, the cherry on top was the gorilla. Even though it was silly, cause the gorilla seemed to represent the idea that animals deserve equal respect and care against those dangers too.

I highly recommend this film for all comedy lovers, and for enthusiasts of 1970s and 1980s cinema. It is quite a gem of its time— and yet, because of the continuing relevance of its message, has managed to be also *timeless*.