Most of you have probably never heard of Joe Ranft, but chances are that you have seen a movie he has written or heard his voice. Ranft was the head of the story department at Pixar, the animation studio responsible for such hits as The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. Ranft was one of Pixar's writers and co-wrote two of their biggest successes (Toy Story and A Bug's Life. He provided the voices for Heimlich the catepillar in A Bug's Life and Wheezy the penguin in Toy Story 2. Ranft was killed Tuesday in an accident involving the Honda Element he was riding. He was 45 years old.
Ranft attended the California Institute of the Arts along with Pixar directors Brad Bird and John Lasseter. His student film attracted the attention of Disney and he began his work there in 1980. He wrote the story for The Brave Little Toaster and wrote on the screenplay for The Rescuers Down Under before going on to such important Disney projects as Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. He provided the storysketch for Who Framed Roger Rabbit and supervised the storyboards for The Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach. At Pixar Ranft played a role in nearly every movie they made. On the forthcoming Cars he supervised the story.
Ranft did a good deal of voice work, beginning with providing the voice for Elmo St. Peters in The Brave Little Toaster in 1987. He provided the voices of Heimlich on A Bug's Life, Wheezy on Toy Story 2, Jacques on Finding Nemo, and additional voices on The Incredibles.
Joe Ranft was a remarkable man who worked in nearly every aspect of animation. He was considered one of the best storytellers in animation today. In fact, his profile at Salon.Comsimply described him as a "story man." He was loved by his fellow animators at Pixar, not simply for being a great talent, but also for being one of the kindest, gentlest men around. I don't think it is truly possible to measure the enormity of his loss not only to Pixar, but to the animation community as a whole. He will most certainly be missed.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Monday, August 15, 2005
American Movie Classics Not Classic Enough
It seems that it is official. American Movie Classics is not showing enough movies that are "classics." For those of you who may not have heard, Justice Bernard Fried of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled last month that American Movie Classics had in fact violated its contract with cable giant Time Warner in showing more recent films. According to AMC's contract with Time Warner from September 1993, which was extended in 2000, the cable channel was restricted to showing films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. In October 2002, however, AMC changed its format from a channel which shows classic films to one which shows more contemporary movies, largely in an effort to appeal to young people.
AMC is expected to appeal the ruling. Rather than cancelling their contract with AMC, some expect Time Waner to simply negotiate a lower fee to carry the cable channel. It should be pointed out that earlier in this year AMC obtained the rights to show 22 Warner Brothers movies from Time Warner, including Batman Begins and Million Dollar Baby. The film rights from that deal are not affected by the outcome of this ruling.
Personally, I would prefer that Time Warner simply drop AMC. For that matter, I would appreciate it if other cable companies followed suit. When American Movie Classics first started years ago, it was a channel that showed older movies. Granted many of those older movies were not what I would consider "classics," but at least they were older movies. The sad truth is that beyond Turner Classic Movies only a few channels (cable or otherwise) show any films made before 1980. While it is true that AMC still shows older films (last week they showed Dr. No and High Noon among others, they also show a lot more recent films. Of course, this cuts down on the number of older films they show. For anyone who loves old movies, this is not exactly a desirable situation.
Here I should point out that I am not biased against younger movies. I love movies both old and recent. Indeed, my DVD collection not only boasts Hitchcock's 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much and that old Danny Kaye film The Court Jester, but such recent films as Hellboy and Hero. That having been said, I do wish the various television outlets would show older films more often.
Of course, much of the reason AMC changed its format was a perception that Turner Classic Movies was simply doing the same thing they were doing and being more successful at it. Personally, I don't think this is a valid reason for AMC to have changed their format. Given how rarely movies made before 1980 are shown on most channels, it seems to me that there was enough room for at least two classic movie channels.
I suppose that one could bring up the fact that what constitutes a "classic" is largely subjective. For some people The President's Analyst is a classic comedy from the Sixties. For others it may just be an old movie. Too, I suppose that even how old a movie must be before it can be considered a "classic" probably varies from person to person. Some might a movie released only ten years ago a classic, while others might maintain that a movie must be at least twenty to thirty years old before it can attain "classic" status.
As for myself, I believe a movie can be considered a "classic" only if it has stood the test of time and is generally considered a great film by most people. Using this as a standard, much of what American Movie Classics now shows could not be called classics. Chain Reaction was made in 1996, yet AMC was showing it just a few years ago. Even if it hadn't received horrible reviews, I don't think Chain Reaction could be considered a classic because it hasn't been around long enough. Friday the 13th was released in 1980, twenty five years ago. I would say that is probably old enough for a film to be called a "classic." Unfortunately, most people would not consider Friday the 13th a great film by any means. I would then say it is not a "classic." Sadly, these sorts of films--movies made less than twenty years ago or films that are, well, just plain bad--occupy as much time on AMC as true classics do, sometimes more.
There was a time when I watched AMC a good deal. Here was a channel where I could see everything from classic Hitchcock films to classic John Wayne Westerns to the classic comedies of the Marx Brothers. Since 2002 I have watched AMC much less than I once did. In fact, I can often go months without tuning it in. For me it is simply a case of not liking what they are showing much of the time. I really have no desire to watch Fatal Attraction or Missing in Action--films I could probably see on TNT, TBS, and USA as well. While AMC may have altered their programming so that it differs a good deal from that of Turner Classic Movies, they have also made themselves more like every other cable channel out there. I won't even start on the commercials. At any rate, I would be very happy if the various cable companies would take a stand and let AMC know they should switch back to showing classic movies, or else.
AMC is expected to appeal the ruling. Rather than cancelling their contract with AMC, some expect Time Waner to simply negotiate a lower fee to carry the cable channel. It should be pointed out that earlier in this year AMC obtained the rights to show 22 Warner Brothers movies from Time Warner, including Batman Begins and Million Dollar Baby. The film rights from that deal are not affected by the outcome of this ruling.
Personally, I would prefer that Time Warner simply drop AMC. For that matter, I would appreciate it if other cable companies followed suit. When American Movie Classics first started years ago, it was a channel that showed older movies. Granted many of those older movies were not what I would consider "classics," but at least they were older movies. The sad truth is that beyond Turner Classic Movies only a few channels (cable or otherwise) show any films made before 1980. While it is true that AMC still shows older films (last week they showed Dr. No and High Noon among others, they also show a lot more recent films. Of course, this cuts down on the number of older films they show. For anyone who loves old movies, this is not exactly a desirable situation.
Here I should point out that I am not biased against younger movies. I love movies both old and recent. Indeed, my DVD collection not only boasts Hitchcock's 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much and that old Danny Kaye film The Court Jester, but such recent films as Hellboy and Hero. That having been said, I do wish the various television outlets would show older films more often.
Of course, much of the reason AMC changed its format was a perception that Turner Classic Movies was simply doing the same thing they were doing and being more successful at it. Personally, I don't think this is a valid reason for AMC to have changed their format. Given how rarely movies made before 1980 are shown on most channels, it seems to me that there was enough room for at least two classic movie channels.
I suppose that one could bring up the fact that what constitutes a "classic" is largely subjective. For some people The President's Analyst is a classic comedy from the Sixties. For others it may just be an old movie. Too, I suppose that even how old a movie must be before it can be considered a "classic" probably varies from person to person. Some might a movie released only ten years ago a classic, while others might maintain that a movie must be at least twenty to thirty years old before it can attain "classic" status.
As for myself, I believe a movie can be considered a "classic" only if it has stood the test of time and is generally considered a great film by most people. Using this as a standard, much of what American Movie Classics now shows could not be called classics. Chain Reaction was made in 1996, yet AMC was showing it just a few years ago. Even if it hadn't received horrible reviews, I don't think Chain Reaction could be considered a classic because it hasn't been around long enough. Friday the 13th was released in 1980, twenty five years ago. I would say that is probably old enough for a film to be called a "classic." Unfortunately, most people would not consider Friday the 13th a great film by any means. I would then say it is not a "classic." Sadly, these sorts of films--movies made less than twenty years ago or films that are, well, just plain bad--occupy as much time on AMC as true classics do, sometimes more.
There was a time when I watched AMC a good deal. Here was a channel where I could see everything from classic Hitchcock films to classic John Wayne Westerns to the classic comedies of the Marx Brothers. Since 2002 I have watched AMC much less than I once did. In fact, I can often go months without tuning it in. For me it is simply a case of not liking what they are showing much of the time. I really have no desire to watch Fatal Attraction or Missing in Action--films I could probably see on TNT, TBS, and USA as well. While AMC may have altered their programming so that it differs a good deal from that of Turner Classic Movies, they have also made themselves more like every other cable channel out there. I won't even start on the commercials. At any rate, I would be very happy if the various cable companies would take a stand and let AMC know they should switch back to showing classic movies, or else.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
VCR
The video cassette recorder or VCR, as we know it, has been around for about thirty years now. I think it is safe to say that it revolutionised the way people watch television. In 1965 an individual who wished to watch a television show had to do so whenever the networks or local stations aired it. In 1985 that same individual could simply record the programme and watch it at a later time.The VCR also brought motion pictures to the homes of common people. No longer would the individual have to wait for his or her favourite movies to be shown on television or re-released to theatres.
The video cassette recorder or VCR was the result of several developments over the years, the first of which was the invention of video tape and the VTR or "video tape recorder." In the early days of broadcasting, the need arose among the television networks to be able to delay broadcsts to the different time zones across the United States. After all, a television programme airing at 8:00 at night on the East Coast would air at 5:00 in the afternoon if broadcast live to the West Coast. Film took time to be developed, so that many programmes aired live on the East Coast would not be seen on the West Coast until days later. Film also tended to be costly. There was then a need for a way in which the networks could record a programme on the East Coast so that it could be viewed on the West Coast later that night. For that reason in 1951 Ampex began work that would result in the world's first video tape recorder. In March 1956 Ampex would market the VRX-1000 (later renamed the Mark IV). At a whopping $50,000, only large corporations, educational insitutions, and governments could afford them. In the United States, CBS (Columbia Broadcast System) would become the first network to use video tape extensively.
Here it should be pointed out that in the Fifties and Sixties, video tape did not come in cassettes. Instead, just like audio tape at the time, all video tape was reel to reel. And just as audio tape was eventually marketed to the average person, so too would video tape. By the mid-Sixties companies would introduce VTRs for home use. In 1964 Sony came out with the CV-2000, a video tape recorder for use in the home. Sony introduced it to the United States in 1965. The CV-2000 did not prove to be a roaring success, with less than a thousand of the machines sold in the United States. In 1966 Ampex released the VR-6275, another video tape recorder for home use. The VR-6265 was revolutionary in that it actually allowed the individual to record one TV show while watching another, just as today's VCRs do. At around $1500, however, the VR-6265 was too costly for anyone but the rich and video tape enthusiasts willing to pay its price. Like Sony's CV-2000, the VR-6265 would not bring video tape to the masses. Despite the few private individuals to actually own VTRS, the first pre-recorded movies would come out on video tape in 1967, well before the advent of the VCR!
It must be pointed out that not every attempt to bring video to the home involved magnetic tape. Both CBS and RCA introduced systems that utilised holography instead. In 1967 CBS introduced Electronic Video Recording or EVR. 20th Century Fox even agreed to sell films in the EVR format. Unforutnately, for CBS, EVR proved too costly to mass produce. RCA called its competing system "HoloTape" and later "SelectaVision or SV," a term the company later used for their magnetic tape. RCA's HoloTape is historic for one simple reason--it was the device meant for home use to utilise laser technology--years before CD and DVD players! Unfortunately, RCA found itself in dire economic straits in the early Seventies. Further development of HoloTape or SelectaVision proved to be too costly for them to continue. They discontinued research into the system in 1972.
It is with the early Seventies that we see the advent of the VCR. The first VCR is generally considered to have been produced by Philips. Philips developed a system they called "Video Compact Cassette" or "Video Cassette Recorder (that's right, the Dutch electronics giant coined the term)." The machines were equipped with primitive timers, using rotary dials, and could record up to an hour. It was about the same time that Sony introduced U-Matic, its own video tape cassette format. Although U-Matic would eventually fall out of favour for home use, it would continue to be used in professional and industrial settings for literally years. In 1972 Avco introduced its Cartrivision system. Cartivision allowed for two hours worth or recording. What is more, it was the first VCR for which pre-recorded tapes were manufactured, AVCO having struck a deal with Columbia Pictures. Despite this, Cartrivision was a failure. Introduced in 1972, Avco abandoned the project in 1973.
Given the relative lack of success with which Philips' VCR, Sony's U-Matic, and Avco's Cartrivision systems met in the early Seventies, it would seem that the average person was not ready for home video. All of this would change in 1975 when Sony introduced its new system, one would which would become one of two major industry standards for the next several years. Sony introduced the Betamax to the United States in 1976, touting it as a means of recording one's favourite programmes. Both Disney and Universal sued Sony, claiming that recording on the device constituted copyright infringement. Fortunately, the American Supreme Court would rule that taping programmes in one's own home was protected by the "fair use" excepition to American copyright laws. Betamax could record up to 4 1/2 hours and quickly became a favourite with video enthusiasts. Unfortunately for Sony, it would soon have a rival on the market.
In 1976, another Japanese company, JVC came out with the VHS (Video Home System) format, the standard format for all videocassettes today. VHS had an advantage over Betamax in that it could record longer periods of time. While many claimed Betamx had a better picture, VHS soon became the more popular format. By 1980 70% of all VCRs sold used the VHS format. Eventually, video rental stores would drop Betamax all together, providing only VHS tapes for rent. Sony continued to manufacture Betamax VCRs for the United States until 1998. They continued manufacturing them in Japan until 2002, finally abandoning the format altogther.
While both Betamax and VHS formats were marketed as a means of recording one's favourite programmes, both created a market for pre-recorded movies. In the United States they also created a whole new type of retail store--the video rental store. Perhaps because of the costs of pre-recoreded movies in the late Seventies and early Eighties (believe it or not, they could cost as much as $50), video rental stores sprung up across the U. S. For a few dollars an individual could rent his or her favourite movies, as well as a machine to play them on. Suprisingly, video rental stores continued to exist even after the price of pre-recorded movies dropped (Video Land here in Huntsville was open for about twenty years before closing down). Chains of video rental stores even sprang up, including Blockbuster.
VCRs have been around in one form or another since 1970. As is often the case, however, it seems that they might soon become obsolete. DVDs of pre-recorded movies often offer more than their VHS counterparts--one not only gets the movie (often in widescreen format), but many extras as well ("Making of..." documentaries, audio commentaries, et. al.). With the advent of the DVD recorder, it has become possible for the average person to record his or her own DVDs, getting a superior picture and sound quality than one would have on VHS. There has also been the development of such DVR (Digital Video Recorder) services as TiVo and ReplayTV. DVRs record a broadcast on a hard drive for replay later. Like the DVD recorder, one gets a better picture than one would with VHS. It would seem that the VCR's obsolescence could then well be inevitable. Already many video rental stores (including the Blockbuster chain) have reduced the number of VHS tapes they carry or have even dropped them altogether. Some retailers, such as Best Buy, have ceased to carry VHS tapes altogether (although both WalMart and Target continue to do so, contrary to popular belief). It would seem, then, that soon VHS may go the way of the dinosaurs. Vinyl records replaced records made of shellac. CDs replaced vinyl records. I rather suspect that DVD recorders and DVRs could replace VCRs before long. Regardless, VCRs will have their place in history, having changed the way people watch television forever.
The video cassette recorder or VCR was the result of several developments over the years, the first of which was the invention of video tape and the VTR or "video tape recorder." In the early days of broadcasting, the need arose among the television networks to be able to delay broadcsts to the different time zones across the United States. After all, a television programme airing at 8:00 at night on the East Coast would air at 5:00 in the afternoon if broadcast live to the West Coast. Film took time to be developed, so that many programmes aired live on the East Coast would not be seen on the West Coast until days later. Film also tended to be costly. There was then a need for a way in which the networks could record a programme on the East Coast so that it could be viewed on the West Coast later that night. For that reason in 1951 Ampex began work that would result in the world's first video tape recorder. In March 1956 Ampex would market the VRX-1000 (later renamed the Mark IV). At a whopping $50,000, only large corporations, educational insitutions, and governments could afford them. In the United States, CBS (Columbia Broadcast System) would become the first network to use video tape extensively.
Here it should be pointed out that in the Fifties and Sixties, video tape did not come in cassettes. Instead, just like audio tape at the time, all video tape was reel to reel. And just as audio tape was eventually marketed to the average person, so too would video tape. By the mid-Sixties companies would introduce VTRs for home use. In 1964 Sony came out with the CV-2000, a video tape recorder for use in the home. Sony introduced it to the United States in 1965. The CV-2000 did not prove to be a roaring success, with less than a thousand of the machines sold in the United States. In 1966 Ampex released the VR-6275, another video tape recorder for home use. The VR-6265 was revolutionary in that it actually allowed the individual to record one TV show while watching another, just as today's VCRs do. At around $1500, however, the VR-6265 was too costly for anyone but the rich and video tape enthusiasts willing to pay its price. Like Sony's CV-2000, the VR-6265 would not bring video tape to the masses. Despite the few private individuals to actually own VTRS, the first pre-recorded movies would come out on video tape in 1967, well before the advent of the VCR!
It must be pointed out that not every attempt to bring video to the home involved magnetic tape. Both CBS and RCA introduced systems that utilised holography instead. In 1967 CBS introduced Electronic Video Recording or EVR. 20th Century Fox even agreed to sell films in the EVR format. Unforutnately, for CBS, EVR proved too costly to mass produce. RCA called its competing system "HoloTape" and later "SelectaVision or SV," a term the company later used for their magnetic tape. RCA's HoloTape is historic for one simple reason--it was the device meant for home use to utilise laser technology--years before CD and DVD players! Unfortunately, RCA found itself in dire economic straits in the early Seventies. Further development of HoloTape or SelectaVision proved to be too costly for them to continue. They discontinued research into the system in 1972.
It is with the early Seventies that we see the advent of the VCR. The first VCR is generally considered to have been produced by Philips. Philips developed a system they called "Video Compact Cassette" or "Video Cassette Recorder (that's right, the Dutch electronics giant coined the term)." The machines were equipped with primitive timers, using rotary dials, and could record up to an hour. It was about the same time that Sony introduced U-Matic, its own video tape cassette format. Although U-Matic would eventually fall out of favour for home use, it would continue to be used in professional and industrial settings for literally years. In 1972 Avco introduced its Cartrivision system. Cartivision allowed for two hours worth or recording. What is more, it was the first VCR for which pre-recorded tapes were manufactured, AVCO having struck a deal with Columbia Pictures. Despite this, Cartrivision was a failure. Introduced in 1972, Avco abandoned the project in 1973.
Given the relative lack of success with which Philips' VCR, Sony's U-Matic, and Avco's Cartrivision systems met in the early Seventies, it would seem that the average person was not ready for home video. All of this would change in 1975 when Sony introduced its new system, one would which would become one of two major industry standards for the next several years. Sony introduced the Betamax to the United States in 1976, touting it as a means of recording one's favourite programmes. Both Disney and Universal sued Sony, claiming that recording on the device constituted copyright infringement. Fortunately, the American Supreme Court would rule that taping programmes in one's own home was protected by the "fair use" excepition to American copyright laws. Betamax could record up to 4 1/2 hours and quickly became a favourite with video enthusiasts. Unfortunately for Sony, it would soon have a rival on the market.
In 1976, another Japanese company, JVC came out with the VHS (Video Home System) format, the standard format for all videocassettes today. VHS had an advantage over Betamax in that it could record longer periods of time. While many claimed Betamx had a better picture, VHS soon became the more popular format. By 1980 70% of all VCRs sold used the VHS format. Eventually, video rental stores would drop Betamax all together, providing only VHS tapes for rent. Sony continued to manufacture Betamax VCRs for the United States until 1998. They continued manufacturing them in Japan until 2002, finally abandoning the format altogther.
While both Betamax and VHS formats were marketed as a means of recording one's favourite programmes, both created a market for pre-recorded movies. In the United States they also created a whole new type of retail store--the video rental store. Perhaps because of the costs of pre-recoreded movies in the late Seventies and early Eighties (believe it or not, they could cost as much as $50), video rental stores sprung up across the U. S. For a few dollars an individual could rent his or her favourite movies, as well as a machine to play them on. Suprisingly, video rental stores continued to exist even after the price of pre-recorded movies dropped (Video Land here in Huntsville was open for about twenty years before closing down). Chains of video rental stores even sprang up, including Blockbuster.
VCRs have been around in one form or another since 1970. As is often the case, however, it seems that they might soon become obsolete. DVDs of pre-recorded movies often offer more than their VHS counterparts--one not only gets the movie (often in widescreen format), but many extras as well ("Making of..." documentaries, audio commentaries, et. al.). With the advent of the DVD recorder, it has become possible for the average person to record his or her own DVDs, getting a superior picture and sound quality than one would have on VHS. There has also been the development of such DVR (Digital Video Recorder) services as TiVo and ReplayTV. DVRs record a broadcast on a hard drive for replay later. Like the DVD recorder, one gets a better picture than one would with VHS. It would seem that the VCR's obsolescence could then well be inevitable. Already many video rental stores (including the Blockbuster chain) have reduced the number of VHS tapes they carry or have even dropped them altogether. Some retailers, such as Best Buy, have ceased to carry VHS tapes altogether (although both WalMart and Target continue to do so, contrary to popular belief). It would seem, then, that soon VHS may go the way of the dinosaurs. Vinyl records replaced records made of shellac. CDs replaced vinyl records. I rather suspect that DVD recorders and DVRs could replace VCRs before long. Regardless, VCRs will have their place in history, having changed the way people watch television forever.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Barbara Bel Gedes R.I.P.
Lung cancer has taken the life of another well known person. Actress Barbara Bel Geddes died of the disease at her home Monday, at age 82.
Barbara Bel Geddes is probably best known for her role as Miss Ellie on the nighttime soap opera Dallas, one of the mainstays of American television in the Eighties; however, her career extended far beyond that role. In fact, she was very successful on the stages of Broadway. The daugher of architect and stage designer Norman Bel Geddes, Bel Geddes made her debut on Broadway in 1941 in the play Out of the Frying Pan. By 1946 she would win a Theatre World Award for her role in the play Deep Are the Roots, directed by Elia Kazan. Over the years Bel Geddes played in several Broadway productions. She was the first actress to play Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in 1955. She also appeared in the plays The Living Room (1954), Mary, Mary (1961), and The Sleeping Prince (1956), among others.
Bel Geddes was primarily a stage actress, so her movie and television credits are few. That having been said, they are very notable. She made her screen debut in the role of Jo Ann in the movie The Long Night in 1947. She also appeared as eldest daughter Katrin in I Remember Mama (1948), a role for which she received an Oscar nomination. Among her other notable films were Fourteen Hours, Panic in the Streets, and Vertigo (in which she played Midge, Scottie's best friend and confidant). On television, beyond her role as Miss Ellie on Dallas, Bel Geddes appeared on various anthology shows (Robert Montgomery Presents, Campbell Playhouse, Schlitz Playhouse of Stars), and Studio One) and she made guest appearances on Daniel Boone and Dr. Kildare. She appeared on Alfred Hitchcock Presents many times. In fact, her most famous role besides Miss Ellie on Dallas may have be her guest appearance in the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode "Lamb to the Slaughter. There she played a wife who murders her philandering husband with a leg of lamb, then serves the murder weapon to the unsuspecting detectives investigating his death.
I never had the opportunity to see Barbara Bel Geddes on stage, but from her few TV and screen apperances I have no doubt she was an immensely talented actress. While her role as Miss Ellie may come to many's minds when they think of Barbara Bel Geddes, I tend to identify her more with her apperances on Alfred Hitchcock Presents and her role as Midge on Vertigo. In both "Lamb to the Slaughter" and Vertigo, Bel Geddes was amazing. She brought a frankness and causalness to her roles that not many actresses could have. Indeed, I have always been impressed with her performance as Midge in Vertigo. She and Jimmy Stewart seemed to have a marvelous rapport. She was very convincing as a woman who watches the man she loves (although that love was sadly unrequited) descend into madness. I don't think any other actress could have played the part quite as well. Indeed, I think it very sad that so many only think of Barabar Bel Geddes as Ellie Ewing on Dallas and remain unaware of the many other roles she played, both on stage and on film. She certainly deserves to be remembered for so much more.
Barbara Bel Geddes is probably best known for her role as Miss Ellie on the nighttime soap opera Dallas, one of the mainstays of American television in the Eighties; however, her career extended far beyond that role. In fact, she was very successful on the stages of Broadway. The daugher of architect and stage designer Norman Bel Geddes, Bel Geddes made her debut on Broadway in 1941 in the play Out of the Frying Pan. By 1946 she would win a Theatre World Award for her role in the play Deep Are the Roots, directed by Elia Kazan. Over the years Bel Geddes played in several Broadway productions. She was the first actress to play Maggie in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof in 1955. She also appeared in the plays The Living Room (1954), Mary, Mary (1961), and The Sleeping Prince (1956), among others.
Bel Geddes was primarily a stage actress, so her movie and television credits are few. That having been said, they are very notable. She made her screen debut in the role of Jo Ann in the movie The Long Night in 1947. She also appeared as eldest daughter Katrin in I Remember Mama (1948), a role for which she received an Oscar nomination. Among her other notable films were Fourteen Hours, Panic in the Streets, and Vertigo (in which she played Midge, Scottie's best friend and confidant). On television, beyond her role as Miss Ellie on Dallas, Bel Geddes appeared on various anthology shows (Robert Montgomery Presents, Campbell Playhouse, Schlitz Playhouse of Stars), and Studio One) and she made guest appearances on Daniel Boone and Dr. Kildare. She appeared on Alfred Hitchcock Presents many times. In fact, her most famous role besides Miss Ellie on Dallas may have be her guest appearance in the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode "Lamb to the Slaughter. There she played a wife who murders her philandering husband with a leg of lamb, then serves the murder weapon to the unsuspecting detectives investigating his death.
I never had the opportunity to see Barbara Bel Geddes on stage, but from her few TV and screen apperances I have no doubt she was an immensely talented actress. While her role as Miss Ellie may come to many's minds when they think of Barbara Bel Geddes, I tend to identify her more with her apperances on Alfred Hitchcock Presents and her role as Midge on Vertigo. In both "Lamb to the Slaughter" and Vertigo, Bel Geddes was amazing. She brought a frankness and causalness to her roles that not many actresses could have. Indeed, I have always been impressed with her performance as Midge in Vertigo. She and Jimmy Stewart seemed to have a marvelous rapport. She was very convincing as a woman who watches the man she loves (although that love was sadly unrequited) descend into madness. I don't think any other actress could have played the part quite as well. Indeed, I think it very sad that so many only think of Barabar Bel Geddes as Ellie Ewing on Dallas and remain unaware of the many other roles she played, both on stage and on film. She certainly deserves to be remembered for so much more.
Tuesday, August 9, 2005
The New TV Season
Here in the United States, the new TV season begins next month. And as always the networks have been advertising all summer long about new shows and new excitement coming in the fall. Unfortunately, it seems to me that for the most part this fall will simply bring more of the same old thing to American network television.
Indeed, even though it has now been five years since CSI: Crime Scene Investigations debuted, the coming season will see the debut of yet more police procedurals. On CBS Criminal Minds will follow a group FBI profilers. On Fox, Bones will centre on a forensic antropologist often consulted by the police. Also on Fox, Killer Instinct follows the San Francisco Police Department's Deviant Crime Unit. While I have always been a fan of CSI and Law and Order, there is a point where there is too much of any one of sort of show on television. In the case of police procedurals, I think American television reached that point years ago. I suppose it might be different if these shows turn out to be substantially different from the other police procedurals on the air, but from the descriptions I have read, they probably won't.
Of course, if there is one genre of show that has been done to death in the past several years it is that of the reality show. Unfortunately, this coming season will see a few more of them. NBC is debuting three alone. Now I really cannot object to Three Wishes, hosted by Amy Grant. The idea behind the show is that deserving individuals and communities will be granted wishes. While the show does not sound like my cup of tea, it seems innocuous enough and even sweet. On the other hand, I have to question the need for an edition of The Apprentice with Martha Stewart (I didn't like the show to begin with). I also have to wonder about the point behind Tommy Lee Goes to College. Is anyone really interested in Motley Crue's drummer going to the University of Nebraska? I suppose that NBC thinks it might be funny. To me it sounds dull. After all, it is not as if we have not seen reality shows placing celebrities in unusual situations before...
I have to admit, however, that I find even reality shows preferable to the few new legal dramas debuting this coming season. Between 1995 and 2003, around 18 different legal dramas aired on network television. In other words, there was a bit of a glut of them on American television for a while. And, quite frankly, I can see no signs that the American people are eager for more legal dramas. While Boston Legal did well in the ratings, both Law and Order: Trial by Jury and Kevin Hill were cancelled. I don't see how the WB thinks Just Legal will succeed, nor can I see how Fox thinks Head Cases will succeed either. Quite frankly, I rather suspect the American people are simply tired of legal dramas.
Of course, I cannot say that there is going to be nothing new on American television this fall. The success of Lost and Medium have resulted in several genre shows (that is, sci-fi, fantasy or horror shows) debuting this season. And I must admit that it seems like it has been some time since theere have been any new genre shows on most of the networks. Unfortunately, many of these shows seem downright derivative to me. Both Invasion on ABC and Threshold on CBS centre on alien invasions, something which Hollywood drove into the ground long ago. Who knows exactly how many movies about alien invasions there have been? It isn't even something new on American television. The Invaders, V, and the syndicated Earth: Final Conflict all centred around alien invasions. As to the other genre shows, The Ghost Whisperer sounds like an outright ripoff of Medium. Of the new genre shows debuting this fall, only three seem to me to have any sort of potential. One is Surface, debuting on NBC, which centres on the discovery of a new lifeform in our oceans. While I'll admit it could turn out really bad, there is also the possibility that it could turn out really good. Another show with possibilities is Supernatural, debuting on the WB. It involves two brothers travelling the United States, fighting the supernatural forces that killed their mother. While I'll admit that the concept may not be that original, it at least sounds more interesting than alien invaders or mediums. Finally, there is Night Stalker, a revamp of the Seventies series Kolchak: The Night Stalker, debuting on ABC. This sounds like the most promising show debuting on any of the networks this fall. It is being produced by veterans of The X-Files (Frank Spotnitz and Dan Sackheim). And unlike the original, they have actually given Kolchak a reason to encounter the supernatural--a mysterious attack which injured him and left his wife dead.
One thing that has me very curious about the coming season is that out of all the shows debuting on the American networks, not one is a quirky, nighttime soap opera. I would have thought that with the success of Desperate Housewives the networks would have rushed to get more on the air. I would have thought we would have seen at least five or six Desperate Housewives imitations. Now don't get me wrong. I am not complaining. I have never seen an episode of Desperate Housewives and, beyond Melrose Place and a nighttime version of Dark Shadows, I've never cared for nighttime soap operas. That having been said, I do think this a bit strange. In fact, it could be the first time in American broadcast history that producers did not rush to imitate the most successful new series on television...
At any rate, I cannot say I am really looking forward to the new fall season. It seems to me that it is simply more of the same old thing, with more police procedurals, more legals dramas, and more reality shows. Even the genre shows which are debuting this season seem like retreads of other shows. I guess one can only hope that the 2006-2007 season will be better.
Indeed, even though it has now been five years since CSI: Crime Scene Investigations debuted, the coming season will see the debut of yet more police procedurals. On CBS Criminal Minds will follow a group FBI profilers. On Fox, Bones will centre on a forensic antropologist often consulted by the police. Also on Fox, Killer Instinct follows the San Francisco Police Department's Deviant Crime Unit. While I have always been a fan of CSI and Law and Order, there is a point where there is too much of any one of sort of show on television. In the case of police procedurals, I think American television reached that point years ago. I suppose it might be different if these shows turn out to be substantially different from the other police procedurals on the air, but from the descriptions I have read, they probably won't.
Of course, if there is one genre of show that has been done to death in the past several years it is that of the reality show. Unfortunately, this coming season will see a few more of them. NBC is debuting three alone. Now I really cannot object to Three Wishes, hosted by Amy Grant. The idea behind the show is that deserving individuals and communities will be granted wishes. While the show does not sound like my cup of tea, it seems innocuous enough and even sweet. On the other hand, I have to question the need for an edition of The Apprentice with Martha Stewart (I didn't like the show to begin with). I also have to wonder about the point behind Tommy Lee Goes to College. Is anyone really interested in Motley Crue's drummer going to the University of Nebraska? I suppose that NBC thinks it might be funny. To me it sounds dull. After all, it is not as if we have not seen reality shows placing celebrities in unusual situations before...
I have to admit, however, that I find even reality shows preferable to the few new legal dramas debuting this coming season. Between 1995 and 2003, around 18 different legal dramas aired on network television. In other words, there was a bit of a glut of them on American television for a while. And, quite frankly, I can see no signs that the American people are eager for more legal dramas. While Boston Legal did well in the ratings, both Law and Order: Trial by Jury and Kevin Hill were cancelled. I don't see how the WB thinks Just Legal will succeed, nor can I see how Fox thinks Head Cases will succeed either. Quite frankly, I rather suspect the American people are simply tired of legal dramas.
Of course, I cannot say that there is going to be nothing new on American television this fall. The success of Lost and Medium have resulted in several genre shows (that is, sci-fi, fantasy or horror shows) debuting this season. And I must admit that it seems like it has been some time since theere have been any new genre shows on most of the networks. Unfortunately, many of these shows seem downright derivative to me. Both Invasion on ABC and Threshold on CBS centre on alien invasions, something which Hollywood drove into the ground long ago. Who knows exactly how many movies about alien invasions there have been? It isn't even something new on American television. The Invaders, V, and the syndicated Earth: Final Conflict all centred around alien invasions. As to the other genre shows, The Ghost Whisperer sounds like an outright ripoff of Medium. Of the new genre shows debuting this fall, only three seem to me to have any sort of potential. One is Surface, debuting on NBC, which centres on the discovery of a new lifeform in our oceans. While I'll admit it could turn out really bad, there is also the possibility that it could turn out really good. Another show with possibilities is Supernatural, debuting on the WB. It involves two brothers travelling the United States, fighting the supernatural forces that killed their mother. While I'll admit that the concept may not be that original, it at least sounds more interesting than alien invaders or mediums. Finally, there is Night Stalker, a revamp of the Seventies series Kolchak: The Night Stalker, debuting on ABC. This sounds like the most promising show debuting on any of the networks this fall. It is being produced by veterans of The X-Files (Frank Spotnitz and Dan Sackheim). And unlike the original, they have actually given Kolchak a reason to encounter the supernatural--a mysterious attack which injured him and left his wife dead.
One thing that has me very curious about the coming season is that out of all the shows debuting on the American networks, not one is a quirky, nighttime soap opera. I would have thought that with the success of Desperate Housewives the networks would have rushed to get more on the air. I would have thought we would have seen at least five or six Desperate Housewives imitations. Now don't get me wrong. I am not complaining. I have never seen an episode of Desperate Housewives and, beyond Melrose Place and a nighttime version of Dark Shadows, I've never cared for nighttime soap operas. That having been said, I do think this a bit strange. In fact, it could be the first time in American broadcast history that producers did not rush to imitate the most successful new series on television...
At any rate, I cannot say I am really looking forward to the new fall season. It seems to me that it is simply more of the same old thing, with more police procedurals, more legals dramas, and more reality shows. Even the genre shows which are debuting this season seem like retreads of other shows. I guess one can only hope that the 2006-2007 season will be better.
Monday, August 8, 2005
Peter Jennings 1938-2005
Last night ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings died after a battle with lung cancer. He was 67 years old.
Peter Jennings was born in Toronto, Ontario on July 29, 1938. He was the son of legendary CBC (Candadian Broadcasting Corporation) anchorman Charles Jennings, who was both CBC's first anchorman and head of their news department. Peter Jennings' broadcasting career began when he was very young. At age 10 he became the host of Peter's Program, a show which featured young talent. As an adult he became a disc jockey at a small radio station in Brockton, Ontario. After covering a train wreck for CBC, he came to the attention of CTV, who hired him as a co-anchor on their late night news. His work at CTV brought him to the attention of ABC (American Broadcasting Company), who hired him 1964.
It was in 1965, at the tender age of 26, that Peter Jennings became the youngest man to ever anchor a nightly network newscast. Unfortunately for ABC, Jennings could not compete with Walter Cronkite at CBS and Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at NBC--three of the biggest names in network news history. He was replaced in 1968. Jennings spent ten years reporting from abroad, even establishing the first American television news bureau in the Middle East.
It was in 1978 that Peter Jennings once more found himself behind the anchor desk of a nightly newcast. He became one of a three anchor team (along with Frank Reynolds and Max Robinson) for ABC's World News Tonight. Jennings anchored from London, Reynolds from Washington, and Robinson from Chicago. In 1983 Jennings became the sole anchorman for World News Tonight. In addition to his duties as an anchor, Jennings was also responsible for various primetime specials focusing on various important issues. The specials focused on everything from abortion to Middle East relations to the life of Jesus. Over the years Jennings won 14 Emmys, two Peabody awards, the Edward R. Murrow Lifetime Achievement Award, and many others.
I cannot say I have ever been a regular viewer of ABC World News Tonight. Growing up, like many Americans, I watched The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. As an adult I tended to watch either the CBS or NBC evening news. That having been said, I do have to say that I thought Peter Jennings was a fine journalist. What always appealed to me about Jennings is that, when covering any news event, he seemed able to throw out the most obscure facts. It was as if he had to let the viewer know every single detail. He also seemed to me to be a man of integrity. In a time when many news outlets tended to focus on the more sensational or trivial aspects of the news (remember all the coverage devoted to the O. J. Simpson trial?), Jennings seemed insistent on keeping the news focused on more important issues. I find it very sad that he had to die before his time. I could have easily seen Peter Jennings continuing for many more years.
Peter Jennings was born in Toronto, Ontario on July 29, 1938. He was the son of legendary CBC (Candadian Broadcasting Corporation) anchorman Charles Jennings, who was both CBC's first anchorman and head of their news department. Peter Jennings' broadcasting career began when he was very young. At age 10 he became the host of Peter's Program, a show which featured young talent. As an adult he became a disc jockey at a small radio station in Brockton, Ontario. After covering a train wreck for CBC, he came to the attention of CTV, who hired him as a co-anchor on their late night news. His work at CTV brought him to the attention of ABC (American Broadcasting Company), who hired him 1964.
It was in 1965, at the tender age of 26, that Peter Jennings became the youngest man to ever anchor a nightly network newscast. Unfortunately for ABC, Jennings could not compete with Walter Cronkite at CBS and Chet Huntley and David Brinkley at NBC--three of the biggest names in network news history. He was replaced in 1968. Jennings spent ten years reporting from abroad, even establishing the first American television news bureau in the Middle East.
It was in 1978 that Peter Jennings once more found himself behind the anchor desk of a nightly newcast. He became one of a three anchor team (along with Frank Reynolds and Max Robinson) for ABC's World News Tonight. Jennings anchored from London, Reynolds from Washington, and Robinson from Chicago. In 1983 Jennings became the sole anchorman for World News Tonight. In addition to his duties as an anchor, Jennings was also responsible for various primetime specials focusing on various important issues. The specials focused on everything from abortion to Middle East relations to the life of Jesus. Over the years Jennings won 14 Emmys, two Peabody awards, the Edward R. Murrow Lifetime Achievement Award, and many others.
I cannot say I have ever been a regular viewer of ABC World News Tonight. Growing up, like many Americans, I watched The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. As an adult I tended to watch either the CBS or NBC evening news. That having been said, I do have to say that I thought Peter Jennings was a fine journalist. What always appealed to me about Jennings is that, when covering any news event, he seemed able to throw out the most obscure facts. It was as if he had to let the viewer know every single detail. He also seemed to me to be a man of integrity. In a time when many news outlets tended to focus on the more sensational or trivial aspects of the news (remember all the coverage devoted to the O. J. Simpson trial?), Jennings seemed insistent on keeping the news focused on more important issues. I find it very sad that he had to die before his time. I could have easily seen Peter Jennings continuing for many more years.
Saturday, August 6, 2005
Down With Love
I have always loved the sex comedies of the late Fifties and early Sixties. In fact, I have probably seen every comedy that Doris Day and Rock Hudson ever made together several times over. It was for that reason I have been looking forward to seeing Down With Love, a movie which seeks to emulate those classic comedies.
Down With Love has been compared to those old Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies with good reason. It does draw heavily upon them. In the plot of the movie, both Barbara Novak (played by Renee Zellweger) and Catcher Block (played by Ewan McGregor) assume different roles in a game of love between the two. The relationship between the two characters unfolds in much the same way that it did for Doris Day and Rock Hudson's characters in their classic films together. That having been said, Down With Love is not simply a clone of the various Doris Day and Rock Hudson vehicles. Indeed, the comedy seems to me to be a bit more broad. In many ways it reminds me more of other sex comedies from the era, namely two Jack Lemmon movies (Under the Yum Yum Tree and How to Murder Your Wife and the James Garner film Boys Night Out. I have to wonder if this was not intentional on the part of the filmmakers, who perhaps intended to make a movie which drew upon all of the Sixties sex comedies and not just those featuring Doris Day and Rock Hudson.
Regardless, Down With Love succeeds in evoking the sex comedies of the Sixties so perfectly that at times one could swear he or she is watching a movie from that era. It utilises nearly all of the film techniques of those films, from split screen to stock footage to montages. The production design even evokes the Sixties sex comedies, the sets and costumes duplicating the bright, kitschy New York City of those films.
Of course, Down With Love would not have succeeded had it not been for its actors' brilliant performances. Renee Zellweger duplitates the wholesome sexuality of Doris Day quite well--a woman who is independent and self reliant,, yet at the same time vulnerable. In Catcher Block, Ewan McGregor creates a character who is very much in the mold of Cary Grant or even James Bond. Like Barbara Novak, Catcher Block is independent and self reliant. He is also dashing, sophisticated, and ultimately selfish, yet, like Barbara Novak, he is also capable of being vulnerable at the same time. The supporting cast, with David Hyde-Pierce and Sarah Paulson playing Block and Novak's best friends respectively, are excellent as well. Between the two of them they play the sort of roles Tony Randall or Audrey Meadows once would have. And speaking of the late, great Tony Randall, he is hilarious as the head of Banner House Publishing. I thought it was a nice touch for him to appear in the movie, given that he did appear in all of the movies Doris Day and Rock Hudson made together.
At any rate, I should point out that it is ultimately the screenplay for Down With Love that lies at the heart of its success. It does draw heavily from the sex comedies of the Sixties, so much so that often one forgets that he or she is watching a movie released in 2003. At the same time, however, the plot unfolds a bit differently from the Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies. Indeed, its ending is wholly unexpected and original. To its credit, Down With Love shares one of the virtues of the Sixties sex comedies--it never descends into cloying sentimentality or overwrought melodramatics.
If Down With Love has one flaw it is that at times it does seem a bit anachronistic. A few of the innuendos in the film, while funny, seem a bit too pointed for 1962, fitting in with the Seventies sensibilities of Are You Being Served or Three's Company than the Sixties sex comedies. And a reference to Tang with regards to the space programme is totally out of place--while Tang had been around since the Fifties, it would not be used in space missions until a few years later! In the movie's defence, it must be pointed out that these are very minor flaws and are very easily overlooked. The virtues of Down with Love far outweigh any of its shortcomings.
Ultimately, Down with Love is a fun romp which evokes the sex comdies of the late Fifties and early Sixties nearly perfectly. I would definitely recommend it to any fan of those movies, as well as anyone who simply enjoys a well done comedy.
Down With Love has been compared to those old Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies with good reason. It does draw heavily upon them. In the plot of the movie, both Barbara Novak (played by Renee Zellweger) and Catcher Block (played by Ewan McGregor) assume different roles in a game of love between the two. The relationship between the two characters unfolds in much the same way that it did for Doris Day and Rock Hudson's characters in their classic films together. That having been said, Down With Love is not simply a clone of the various Doris Day and Rock Hudson vehicles. Indeed, the comedy seems to me to be a bit more broad. In many ways it reminds me more of other sex comedies from the era, namely two Jack Lemmon movies (Under the Yum Yum Tree and How to Murder Your Wife and the James Garner film Boys Night Out. I have to wonder if this was not intentional on the part of the filmmakers, who perhaps intended to make a movie which drew upon all of the Sixties sex comedies and not just those featuring Doris Day and Rock Hudson.
Regardless, Down With Love succeeds in evoking the sex comedies of the Sixties so perfectly that at times one could swear he or she is watching a movie from that era. It utilises nearly all of the film techniques of those films, from split screen to stock footage to montages. The production design even evokes the Sixties sex comedies, the sets and costumes duplicating the bright, kitschy New York City of those films.
Of course, Down With Love would not have succeeded had it not been for its actors' brilliant performances. Renee Zellweger duplitates the wholesome sexuality of Doris Day quite well--a woman who is independent and self reliant,, yet at the same time vulnerable. In Catcher Block, Ewan McGregor creates a character who is very much in the mold of Cary Grant or even James Bond. Like Barbara Novak, Catcher Block is independent and self reliant. He is also dashing, sophisticated, and ultimately selfish, yet, like Barbara Novak, he is also capable of being vulnerable at the same time. The supporting cast, with David Hyde-Pierce and Sarah Paulson playing Block and Novak's best friends respectively, are excellent as well. Between the two of them they play the sort of roles Tony Randall or Audrey Meadows once would have. And speaking of the late, great Tony Randall, he is hilarious as the head of Banner House Publishing. I thought it was a nice touch for him to appear in the movie, given that he did appear in all of the movies Doris Day and Rock Hudson made together.
At any rate, I should point out that it is ultimately the screenplay for Down With Love that lies at the heart of its success. It does draw heavily from the sex comedies of the Sixties, so much so that often one forgets that he or she is watching a movie released in 2003. At the same time, however, the plot unfolds a bit differently from the Doris Day/Rock Hudson movies. Indeed, its ending is wholly unexpected and original. To its credit, Down With Love shares one of the virtues of the Sixties sex comedies--it never descends into cloying sentimentality or overwrought melodramatics.
If Down With Love has one flaw it is that at times it does seem a bit anachronistic. A few of the innuendos in the film, while funny, seem a bit too pointed for 1962, fitting in with the Seventies sensibilities of Are You Being Served or Three's Company than the Sixties sex comedies. And a reference to Tang with regards to the space programme is totally out of place--while Tang had been around since the Fifties, it would not be used in space missions until a few years later! In the movie's defence, it must be pointed out that these are very minor flaws and are very easily overlooked. The virtues of Down with Love far outweigh any of its shortcomings.
Ultimately, Down with Love is a fun romp which evokes the sex comdies of the late Fifties and early Sixties nearly perfectly. I would definitely recommend it to any fan of those movies, as well as anyone who simply enjoys a well done comedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
