"State Fair" (1962)

Music is better--better singers (Bobby Darin, Pat Boone), songs seem better somehow, better use of music in the background, maybe music recorded better, too.

Not sure that I liked the story better, though.  Of the subtle differences in story, I think I prefer the 1945 version overall.  Okay, maybe 1 or 2 story changes I liked better in this version.  Still I think I'd take the 1945 story with the 1962 music.  This might be an interesting movie to look at as a crossover/clash of 50s values (which win out) and the 60s values to come (which do flavor the show some).  I may be reading in some of the 60s bit--reading in something that isn't there.  But, it isn't just a modernization of the 1945 version.  There is something a little bit different about it--something besides the singing--and that's what I think it is.  It's trying to cross over into the 60s, but isn't ready to leave the 50s yet.

My recommendation, watch for the music--and if you like looking at those early race cars.

"The Real Story: Indiana Jones" (2009)

Let's get this out of the way:  Music is pretty non-descript.  "Let's think of Indiana Jones movies without really using that music and just kind of hover there in the background."  In other words, it works.

Settled.

Now...

You know that disclaimer at the end of movies about how any correlation between the movie and any real person, place, thing, historical event, or garden carrot is purely coincidental?  This episode pretty much said, "Yeah, let's ignore that and look anyway."  

It asks the question, "Was there a real life Indiana Jones?" and tries to tie the proposed historical figures into a "SEE!  SEE!  Here's the inspiration for the movie character. Uh-huh. Uh-huh," mystery speculation (which fails to feel like any kind of  'mysterious debate'  fuel to me--sorry).  Two propositions.  The first was interesting enough.  The second was depressing--which was why, I suppose, they started with the other one first, so you would keep watching.  Makes sense.

Then I was mulling over the theory of "There's only really one story," otherwise known as "There's nothing new under the sun."  This presents the question:  "Does it matter whether it is one story or two?"  And I don't mean that as in "Who cares?"  I mean that in, "What is the impact of that answer?"  

I think I may have just stubbed my toe on the corner of a literary debate/theory outcropping in my living room.

If you're looking for something short, just to fill the time, then this episode isn't too bad.  This documentary does cut out all of the false suspense building.  Thank you.  Yet at the same time it is unsatisfying.  

That's rather misleading.  That makes it sound like it's a bad thing, but I don't think it is.  It's unsatisfying because now I want to watch a biography documentary of the first person, one that does a more thorough job than this show did.  And I want to watch a team or group of people go back and do a more thorough exploration of that cave in the second story.  So, I think it's a good unsatisfying.  I just don't have the time to follow up either desire right now.  And highly doubt either exists.

So, much for satisfaction.

"Secrets: A Viking Map?" (2013)

The sound was a little better--still dramatic--but not as bad as some of the other documentaries.  This documentary is not questioning the arrival of the Vikings to America.  It is looking at the authenticity of an artifact known as the Vinland map.  A good introduction to this particular artifact.  This documentary is also a good introduction into looking at why anything is produced--Why is this document written?  Why is this essay written?  Why is this news article written?  Why is this product on the market?--Or in the case of this documentary, Why is this map produced?  Does a nice balanced job of presenting the ambiguousness of historical research.

"Secrets: The Sphinx" (2013)

This is what you get when you try to make archaeology as exciting as the Super Bowl.  Good Grief!  And the music has "got" to be straight out of an opera's mass choir "crowd goes to war" scenes.  

Wouldn't it be easier just to play an operatic quartet  number during each 4th down of a football game, and then during the final two minutes of the 4th quarter say "Yeah, we still don't really know anything about the Sphinx."?  The effect would be the same.  All that was missing was for one archaeologist to tackle another one.

Or we could just teach the whole stadium to sing, "O Fortuna".  That would work, too.

Perhaps if I took a class on the history of the documentary, maybe that would enlighten why these choices are made.  Otherwise:  For the "adrenaline junky", it's not going to cut it.  For the scholar, it seems to me more annoying than anything.  And as for pop-scholarism?  Let's commit and do it, instead just commercializing our egos.

I will say I recognize the mentioned "hey we found this tomb" tomb in this documentary as the tomb that held one of the "we're going to open this" spots from "Into the Great Pyramid" .  And the guy talking about that spot (Director of Giza.....) was also in the other one, too.

"Penelope" (2006)

SPOILER ALERT  (seriously, SPOILER ALERT):

In my quest to find a mild-mannered film, I came across this title.  Knowing my interest in leading characters with a "flaw" of some kind, I gave this a shot and was very pleasantly surprised.  This is a modernized fairy tale, but it also nicely includes a twist or two that I didn't exactly see coming.  I like that.

The first on-the-list surprise is that the guy doesn't save the girl.  The girl does.  She saves herself.  Twice.  And in a way, him, too.  A "self-rescuing princess" as I heard a friend tell me once.  This also counts as the second on-the-list surprise because I was expecting either 1.) girl marries wrong boy, marriage breaks curse, divorces boy, marries right boy or 2.) girl marries right boy, they don't worry about curse, or he has a secret past even he doesn't know of that breaks the curse.  But it was neither of these.  And I liked being "wrong" in this way because then it meant I didn't have the story all figured out because the story wasn't exactly like all the other romances.

I also liked that they cast a little person (isn't that what is politically correct?  hope so.  My apologies if it is wrong.) as one of the other characters without making his stature part of the story and without making it part of any of the jokes.  He was just another character.  I liked that.  Movies need to do that more.

So, girl saves herself.  And gets the right boy.  Boy changes, but not because girl made him.

Is this the new correct way to write a romance story that will please both genders?  And would you believe it, I think I like it--a lot--and not like it at the same time.

Don't get me wrong!!!  I really enjoyed this movie and really like what they did with the plot.  Period.

I just think the thinking part of me realizes how much we all need saving.  That means, I really hope the other story doesn't disappear.  And I really don't think it will.

And it is certain that there are traces of "woman as angel" in the story, but they're very faint.  [And I'm realizing this post has way too many "and"'s and "so"'s in it.  So, there's that annoying bit.]  Maybe I'd like to see an action romance movie, one where girl saves boy from bad guys.  And the boy isn't a wimp, or jerk or lost cause.  A boy who's a good looker who's in a bad spot.  A movie done well that isn't over the top unbelievable.  And that doesn't look like the over abundance of cop shows.  An action movie where it's not a cop shop.  There's a good writing challenge for you.

As for modernized fairy tales, I think the genre has possibilities of generating enough "new" stories to be considered a category of films.  I like it.  Let's keep 'em.

"Biography: Irving Berlin: An American Song" (2001)

I'm not super familiar with A&E Biography not subscribing to cable as I do, and the brief bursts of cable contact during hotel stays and such always seemed to lead to other choices.  Tonight seemed to be the night to actually get around to watching this particular episode, one I've had on the shelf for awhile.

Amazing.

I've had some negative after affects from some biographical productions--not for the quality of the production so much as sometimes what you get when you start digging into the behind the scenes information of people's lives yields information you didn't really want and results that you didn't expect to get.  And after a particularly negative experience that has long since "scarred" me, I've since been a little "gun shy" for watching them--which is why this particular one has been on my shelf for so long.  This biography, happily, did not have that effect.  Not only did enjoy learning new things (a consistent joy to me), but I was able to make some other connections, too.  There were the songs I'd come to know from my music days when music was so much more a part of my life--songs that had showed up in teaching jazz band, songs on my shelf to be played for pleasure on my clarinet and piano.  All these songs now had a context for a life, and in some instances a specific context.  Much of this, I guess, I expected and anticipated.  What I didn't anticipate was the movie connection.  A number of the movies that had Irving Berlin connections were ones that I was either quite familiar with or were ones that I've seen within the last few years.  "Alexander's Ragtime Band" (1938), "This Is the Army" (1943), "Easter Parade" (1948), "Annie Get Your Gun" (1950), and "Call Me Madam" (1953), as well as "Holiday Inn" were movies that when this biography referenced them, I could say not only "I've seen that!" and "I've seen that, too!", but I felt I knew exactly what they were talking about when they were musically chaptering them.  Other than name recognition of "Irving Berlin", I'd never really thought about how all of these strung together.  And when this biography did all of that, all I could do was say, "wow".

I mean, when the biography referenced the "This Is the Army" appearance of Irving Berlin himself, and the crowd's reception, and some of the other things said.  I could say, "I remember that moment!"  And remember being amazed myself when I originally saw that scene to go "That's Irving Berlin!" with my jaw dropping.   And then, to learn that he was very much quite alive during 18 years of my life, that he lived a full year plus past when my dad lived, I'm filled with thrilled amazement and dismay that such an "institution" to American culture would be out of my knowledge until now.  And his adaptive achievements--wow.

Amazing.

"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" Special Edition (1969)

This movie reawakened the question of "What makes a movie slow?"  This movie had its slow moments (so I did fast forward just a tiny bit in places), but I wouldn't call it a slow movie.  I don't know that you can judge by amount of chase scenes, length or amount of suspenseful moments, or anything as obvious as all these things.  At least some of it has to be the mood of the person watching.  If the person is impatient for something in their own life, will all movies seem slow?  If a person is perfectly content with things, will all movies seem either just right or too fast?

SPOILER ALERT:  And the ending.  What.  Forget the "If you want a happy ending, stop here" sign?  Well, guess you can't complain too much about not knowing what happens.  The boy gets the girl, a happy wedding, and no marriage obligations.  Thanks a lot.

Analysis all being said, it was a decent enough movie.  After all, it's a James Bond movie, so what do you expect?  He likes all the girls.  The occasional gadget exits.  Everybody "hates" Bond so they attack 'im; therefore, there's lots of fights and chase scenes.  This one is a regular Winter Olympics--skiing, skating, snow blowers (really?  was that scene/moment necessary?), bobsleds down tracks, avalanches, carols, Christmas trees, presents, people falling over cliffs, and a demolition derby and a bull fight thrown in for good measure. And Bond in a Scottish kilt...ok.

And, obviously, there's the iconic Bond music.  The man sweeping and whistling a fragment of a Bond theme was a very nice touch.

Make note:  This really is a fine movie.  It just leaves me with more analytic questions than what I have answers for.