Juno And The Paycock

I finished the Alfred Hitchcock film, "Juno and the Paycock."

It's part of a 4-disc DVD set I got at Walmart for $5.00. It's been nearly two months since I bought this set and I've been watching them ever since. It has 20 movies. I'm on the last disc. "Juno" is the first movie on the fourth disc.

It's really been a fun education for me, I guess I'd call it, in the early films of Hitchcock. I would definitely like to see them all at this point, and maybe go through them again or a few more times.

This one I wasn't too sure about. I started watching it without having any idea what was going on or what it was about. So it seemed like nothing but a slice of life for a family of Irish folks. Then I read a little about it and even read the plot and accidentally read about the ending, so I knew what was coming up. It actually made it a lot more enjoyable to watch.

It is based on a play by Sean O'Casey, and according to those who know, it's a very faithful adaptation. It really does seem like a play, more or less, filmed. There's a few variances from that.

Anyway, I had no idea what a "paycock" was so I was a little put off by that. Turns out it's just a way of pronouncing "peacock." And Juno and the Paycock has an Aesop's Fables connection, which I also read about online.

There's a family of Irish folk, the Boyle family, with the woman, Juno, the man (can't think of his name, but he's the peacock in all this), their daughter Mary, and their one-armed, very moody son, Johnny. Johnny seems to be in with the wrong crowd and is doing something that gets him in trouble. I'm not sure what. I need to watch it again.

Mary ends up pregnant in the movie and that's a shame for her. Johnny ends up dead. Juno and the Paycock end up broke and fairly in despair. So that's the ending, sorry to ruin it for you.

As to the dialogue, you can make out most of it if you really try, but it's tough, with a very pronounced Irish accent. I love the acting and the characterizations. The husband is very irascible. He has a drinking buddy who's fun to watch too.

The family thinks they inherit a bunch of money, proceed to spend on credit, oblivious to the possibility that something could go wrong. This is exactly what I would not do. I need to know the money's there. So that was kind of dumb on their part, but that's the movie.

As it went on I became a lot more interested. Knowing what was going on really helped.

Easy Virtue

I watched the Alfred Hitchcock movie, "Easy Virtue."

It is a silent one, with the DVD I have having a nice music soundtrack to keep it from being completely silent.

I believe the date was 1926 for this film.

In the film, the main character, Larita, was accused of cheating on her husband and found guilty. It didn't appear to me that she actually was guilty, but maybe there was a little dalliance there somewhere. I frankly missed whatever it was she was supposed to have done wrong, even though I was watching closely.

Anyway, found guilty, the old coot who was her husband, divorced her. So she's off to lose herself at the Mediterranean somewhere. While there she meets a guy named John Whittaker, a young man who falls in love with her. They have a grand old time and eventually get married.

Then for some reason, which I couldn't figure out either, they go to live with his parents and the various other folks of the household. The mother is a terror to Larita, and she scared me too, looking very imposing and mean. The father is a nice guy, and most of the rest of the family is fairly decent, including John's ex-girlfriend, who's a real champ. The mother and one daughter seem to be the worst, especially the mom.

Eventually the mother turns John against Larita. He admits as much outside and Larita, behind a bush, overhears him.

About now the family learns Larita's terrible secret, that she was involved in this scandalous divorce. Mother confronts her, and it's a mess. Especially since they've already invited everyone in for a big party in honor of John and Larita. Things are fairly uneventful at the party ... and it drifts off from there ... with the ending being that the happy couple get divorced.

I was amazed at how much smoking Larita did in the film (I can't remember the actress' name.) That might've seemed scandalous too but no one mentioned it. Even though I don't recall other women smoking.

I was looking at a book on Hitchcock's films, "Hitchcock's Films Revisited," by Robin Wood, who says in a footnote (p. 242), "The figure of the guilty woman occurs already -- if not very interestingly -- in Easy Virtue..." That's right about the "not very interestingly." It seems like for being so scandalous, Larita kept it all very sedate and under control. I was expecting her to go mad at the party and to shame John's family beyond reason. But it didn't happen.

It's interesting to a point ... I watched in an interested way. But mostly because I kept expecting something big to happen, and it didn't. The menacing mother was a real joy to watch, very yucky. And I sort of liked Larita, although she wasn't all that interesting. I liked Sarah, the ex-girlfriend, who told John he needed to stand by Larita (great advice and very gracious.) But I hated John for giving in to his mother and turning on Larita. He should've taken Sarah's advice, and stood by Larita in true love.

It might not have been a great ending for Hitchcock to do it that way, of course, but I like to see love prevail!

The 39 Steps

I watched the Alfred Hitchcock film "The 39 Steps." It was gripping.

I need to watch it again, since I had a hard time "getting it" entirely, what was going on.

Now that I know who was on what side, maybe it will make better sense to me. I didn't know Mr. Memory had something to do with it. I figured that was just filler at the beginning.

So, for the first time in a long time, I'm going to watch the same movie twice in a row.

Spies, I prefer agents.

The Farmer's Wife

I completely watched the film, "The Farmer's Wife," directed by Alfred Hitchcock, from 1928. I wrote a tiny bit about this yesterday.

I both enjoyed it and struggled with it. Everywhere I look they say it is 97 or 98 minutes, but it feels so much longer than that. It's a silent movie, so you have to pay very close attention. Then it has a musical soundtrack that, in my case, induces sleepiness. I bet I took three naps just trying to make it through this one film, stopping the DVD of course each time.

But like I said that doesn't mean it wasn't enjoyable, because it was. There were, however, many scenes that could've been shortened or even left out all together. But it looks like the theory was that a silent movie needed longs of prolonged close-ups to get the full story across, the emotional transformations that a person makes.

The premise of the film is that a farmer's wife died, and he eventually decides to remarry. He makes a list of the eligible bachelorettes he can think of in the area. He has a housekeeper, but for some reason never considers her. Then we step through the attempts to marry the women on the list, each of whom reject his proposal. In the picture above, the woman on the left is the housekeeper, Araminta Dench (called 'Minta) played by Lilian Hall-Davis. The woman in the middle is one of the women on the list, my favorite character, Thirza Tapper played by Maud Gill. The man is not the farmer, but the farmer's handyman, Churdles Ash, played by Gordon Harker.

Each of these characters I really came to like, to the point that I wasn't really thinking about the characters so much but the individuals who played them. The others were great too. Maybe my least favorite was the farmer himself, who, even though he had land, animals, etc., didn't seem like that great a guy. I don't think I would've married him either, like if we were in a state that allowed that. Of course I know it was the premise of the film that had to be worked through, but anyone who would overlook the housekeeper for that much of the movie would have to be a blockhead. She was clearly the best girl in town, and already right under his own roof!

Of the four women who rejected him, I would only have good things to say. They played their characters excellently. I liked the mousy, fussy Thirza Tapper best. The farmer shows up to a party at her place a half hour early and it's a lot of fun watching her, very flustered, get ready to go down and meet him, since she has to work on her make-up, hair, etc. She really looks the part, her face and mannerisms.

One other thing, Gordon Harker plays a hilarious handyman, with a lot of excellent mannerisms. The camera's on him a lot, being very comic.

A Sherlock Holmes Foggy Night

Last night when I took the dog out, it was a weird feeling night. It was foggy and it was still, no wind. It was peaceful, except when a car drove by. Because there was some moisture on the street, and you could hear the wheels picking up water and making that high splashing sound.

When all the cars were passed, it went back to a great stillness. I love it when there's no wind. You can feel like you're well balanced.

It reminded me of an old Sherlock Holmes movie, which had something to do with a claw. It was something like this, that people were being killed by a claw and many assumed was an animal, but was actually a guy with a claw. I found it. It was called "The Scarlet Claw."

Sherlock (Basil Rathbone) is walking along with this guy, who says, "Three deaths and three days," and he indicates that there needs to be one more, Mr. Holmes' death himself!

That's what I was thinking about while walking on that peaceful foggy night. Not a good thought. I'd much rather just look around and think about the enclosure that the fog seems to give.

Bette Davis Has Bette Davis Eyes

I got a VHS movie yesterday starring Bette Davis, "Jezebel," from 1938.

It looks good. It says she won an Academy Award for her memorable performance, and that it is a true classic of the cinema.

One of these days I'll get around to watching it.

I got three other VHS tapes. I was avoiding buying these because of DVDs, but since they're so cheap now, $1.00 each, it's obviously a good value and cheap entertainment. Three of the movies weren't even opened yet. Those were "Alexander the Great," starring Richard Burton; "Notorious," one of the great Hitchcock movies I've never seen, and "The Charge of the Light Brigade," starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland, which I've never seen either.

I've never seen any of these four movies. So I'm glad to have them.

Under The Yum Yum Tree

I'm watching an old lascivious movie, "Under The Yum Yum Tree," starring Jack Lemmon. I got a VHS of it at a thrift store a week or two ago.

It started out very cute, if somewhat (somewhat??) dated. As I progress it's still cute but Jack is being a bit over the top with poking his nose into the people's business.

There's a couple who want to live together "without sleeping together," to find out if they're compatible for marriage. Jack is the landlord of an apartment complex that typically only rents to women, because he's a lech and has a thing going with as many of them as possible.

He's surprised that this young lady has her boyfriend living with her with this arrangement. And he wants to do what he can, I guess, to get the guy out of the way.

It's like going back in a time capsule. It's so dated it's hilarious. Plus, it's kind of funny in its own way. I like seeing Paul Lynde, who was present for the first 20 minutes or so.

Commander Cody

Just this morning I started watching the serial "Radar Men from the Moon" (or something like that), introducing the character Commander Cody.

I guess I never knew who Commander Cody was. I just remember the name of the singing group that had Commander Cody in the name.

But he was on old serials, as an adventure character. Anyway, I'm still in the first episode, which features some guys shooting a ray gun at trains, electrical towers, etc.

Commander Cody has a flying suit, which when he gets it all adjusted, he's able to fly and get there just before they blow up another train.

The Commander is an ordinary looking guy, but looks extraordinary with the big bullet helmet.

We'll see how this goes. I've seen several serials, and they tend to be monotonous, a lot of getting the secret thing, then losing it, then getting it, then losing it, etc. I hope this one is better.

The Great Escape - Movie

The present movie I'm watching while doing my exercises (20 minutes a day) is 1963's "The Great Escape," starring Steve McQueen.

How many shows were there anyway about Nazi prisoner of war camps? "Stalag 13," "Hogan's Heroes," and this one are the ones I can think of. "Hogan's Heroes" of course is a heck of a concept for a sitcom. But somehow they made it work.

So far, I'm probably still in the first hour, I haven't seen any swastikas. So there must have been a reason for that. Wonder why. They're not saying Nazis all that often either. They use a couple words over and over for the Nazis: goons and ferrets.

The big thing about the movie is how they're constantly trying to escape, and the culmination of their efforts will be a "Great Escape," based on a true story.

Just watching the first 40 minutes or so, the goons don't seem very smart. They fall for every diversion and they don't seem to recognize all the dirt showing up in the prison yard (from digging a tunnel).

It might just be me, but if I'm in charge or a guard in a prison camp, and the prisoners we have are known for escapes, I'm going to be extra suspicious about everything. I'm going to be periodically emptying out the barracks and checking the floors, including under the stove (duh). And any kind of apparent diversionary tactics would be addressed as well.

If someone is able to dig a 335 foot tunnel, that means someone else wasn't paying very good attention up here.

I'm Your New Commander, You Now Are My Prisoner

The other day I got the soundtrack of "Rocky Horror" from the Roxy Theater. 1974, I believe.

I like hearing it. Since I've heard the movie soundtrack so many times that there's nothing left to hear (and I still love it.)

The Roxy one is of course different. And I haven't heard it enough to know all the differences. It's all nice as far as I'm concerned. I don't care for the Brad song in the middle, which I don't even remember the title to, the one that didn't make the movie. So I keep skipping it -- whether it's the movie soundtrack album or this one.

An interesting snippet I heard tonight while at the exercise place -- well, I heard the whole "Rose Tints My World" song. The interesting snippet of this is where Riff Raff says, "Frank N. Furter, it's all over, your mission is a failure," etc. He almost sounds like Little Richard on one part. It's very boisterous and soulful, as compared to the movie's more metallic, driving version.

I Finished Watching Doctor Zhivago

This is a big day. I finally got through the whole movie, Doctor Zhivago!

As I've said before, I watch movies while doing my morning and evening exercises. I have a particular regimen that takes around 10 minutes each morning and evening. So to watch a movie means to watch it around 20 minutes a day. And this is a longer film.

Add to that the fact that I was depressed by it at first and could've quit at any point. But I got a little more engrossed, and insisted on the discipline of seeing it through to the end. As I became more engrossed, it was an easier task.

I liked it quite a lot, as it turns out. And I watched most of the documentary afterward on the making of it. I have a little more to go.

The Making Of It documentary really drives home the point how hard it'd be to make a movie like that. Wow!

My Doctor Zhivago Update

I must be about finished with Doctor Zhivago, watching it. I'm on the second tape and it seems like it's getting close to the end.

I also got the soundtrack record today at a thrift store. Honestly, I suppose I have the record already in the basement, but I was at the thrift store, there was a very nice copy for 50 cents, so I got it.

I've never heard the soundtrack record before today ... even though I've known I had it over the years. The front cover never appealed to me, but that was all before I ever saw the movie and really zeroed in on it. I would always glance at the picture of Geraldine Chaplin on the left side and it never appealed to me. Looks like a guy about to kiss a baby seal.

It's funny, I never really looked at the cover at all .... really looked at it. The thing is I'm never interested in soundtrack albums of movies I haven't seen. So I can look at them a million times in thrift stores and recognize them without ever really zeroing in on them. The same thing was true of the "Music Man" soundtracks -- Broadway and film. Now that I've seen the movie, I look at them carefully.

As to the movie, I like it OK. But I don't think anyone could trudge across that frozen tundra and not freeze to death, but hey, I got severely chilled tonight just taking my dog out. And it's not below freezing.

Watching Doctor Zhivago

I'm watching Doctor Zhivago while doing my morning and evening exercises. I've probably seen over an hour of it so far. I believe it's a long movie because there's two tapes.

It seems like a great movie. Except it also is very depressing, and it looks like it's going to get more so. They've had the revolution and the Russians are a cheerless bunch.

This one guy -- the Doctor's brothers -- only speaks as narration in hindsight. He's in the scenes with his brother and he stands there like a post, not saying anything.

The rabble has taken over their house. They haven't got any freedom. The thought police are everywhere. Was that the way it was? It looks like they didn't get off to a good start in Russia! I guess I thought it took a while, but what do I know? (Nothing).

I'm up to the part there Zhivago and his wife and this one old guy who hangs out with them have clambered into a freight car on a train. That's depressing!

Will I make it all the way through this great ... yet bloody cheerless movie?

West Side Story

I'm watching "West Side Story" on a VHS tape I got some month ago.

I know it must sound absurd to say I've never seen this, but it's true. How many hundreds of times have I seen the old soundtrack LP over the years. But I never really had any idea what it was all about. Seriously. I'm very out of touch at times.

Whether I've ever owned it, like in a box of records, doesn't mean anything. I definitely never listened to it.

Now, I'm only up to the part where the Puerto Ricans have sung "America," so I don't know if anything else will be familiar. I have heard the song "Maria" or snippets of it, and I could have identified where it came from, and I have heard the song "America" or snippets of it, but I could not have identified it.

So far I'm really liking it. The opening, though, with the weird looking gangs, that was disconcerting. They looked like space aliens to me. Or cult members.

I don't know how much more there is to go ... but it's enjoyable and I hope it stays that way.

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... And Spring

Bowing and pranams all around ... namaste, have a nice day.

Here's a movie, "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring." It's Korean. I don't think I've ever seen a Korean movie before. It is definitely a good one. Have you ever heard of it? Do you ever look at the foreign titles at the local video store? I wasn't looking for it but saw it and decided to risk $1.89 to watch it. Good choice.

This is a movie like I always think I want to see. A movie without a clear plot. The conflict throughout is man against himself, and even then it's more like man accepts himself, then overcomes himself to experience his real self. There's guns and sex and murder and unpleasant things aplenty, but it's all part of the person's development and tangential to the story in a way it wouldn't be in other movies.

You can tell by the title and by the sequential nature of it -- seasonal vignettes -- what's going to happen, which is OK. You just want to see whatever growth, whatever acceptance, whatever regrets, etc., are going to come about.

There's an older man and a child, who grows, on a small lake, in the middle of the lake, in a little house. They have a wooden dock surrounding the house, out there floating. They have a rowboat and they're back and forth to the shore continually. They do various Buddhist rituals, and that's their religion. It's very interesting that their bedroom is not walled off from the rest of the interior of the house but they have a standing door that they use. I'm thinking I need one of those kind of houses. No walls, but still have doors. It seemed appealing.

The young man grows, makes mistakes, learns about suffering by suffering. The old man seems quiet, not exactly disappointed but expecting all this. He doesn't jump in continually to help correct the young man's mistakes, but does offer some guidance, especially when he's a tiny kid. The kid's tormenting little animals and learns a lesson that stays with him till the end.

They go through the seasons. There's a girl on board for a while. This is where the sex happens. The young man is growing up and has to learn.

As for the appearance of things in the movie, it's all very beautiful. It plods along in places where you'd expect them to cut it and let time lapse more quickly. But it's all OK. You see him crawling up a hill in excruciating detail, for example. It's a movie to think about.

Several quite unexpected things happen. At least from my point of view. It's a movie worth finding.

Francis and Mr. Ed

I found myself involved today in probably the stupidest argument I've ever had in my life.

It had to do with whether Francis the Talking Mule was ever in a movie together with Mr. Ed. I dismissed the idea out of hand, saying that Francis was from the '40s and Mr. Ed was from the '60s. She rightly pointed out that the character of Francis could very easily have been played by a different mule in the '60s. But I dismissed it simply as something that didn't happen. And that was my downfall.

At that point it became an argument based less on the merits than on the contention that I "always have to be right." I'm saying no such thing is the case and "look it up." It's easy enough to find out by looking on the internet.

Quite frankly, I don't know everything about every movie, but I don't remember Mr. Ed being in any movies PERIOD, just the TV show. Therefore I felt sure that the two stars -- the mule and the horse -- were never paired.

It went on like that for another minute and she left ... mad.

W.

I was overjoyed to finally be rid of George W. Bush. So it took some doing to decide to watch the movie W.

I read the reviews and pretty much figured what it was going to be. And it turned out to be all that and more. But however good it was, it's not one I want to see again. It's one I would definitely recommend renting, not buying. I want to be rid of Bush, not to see him on my shelf for future entertainment.

One reviewer said it was a fairly sympathetic portrayal of Bush. And I think that's true. He's shown as loud, a big hick, a dunce, consumed with a desire to please his dad, and all the rest. I never thought he was that much of a brain, but I think he is probably smarter in real life than the movie showed. So as much as I dislike, I think I would've gone for an even more sympathetic portrayal, in the sense of keeping it closer to the facts.

You could feel some of those moments where it wasn't according to facts. Like where Bush made some of his more well-known verbal bobbles, like "Is our children learning," "misunderestimating me," others like that. They seemed to me to be in different contexts than they were in actual history. But that's OK. It's necessary to do a certain telescoping, stylizing to make it into a movie of coherence and not just a documentary.

I liked it how Bush kept calling Cheney "Vice." I don't know if he really did that, but it lent itself well to the dumb kind of portrayal Oliver Stone was going for. We definitely know he had nicknames for people, so it didn't seem unbelievable.

Even though there was some sympathetic stuff, there's no way that watching the movie made me long for or like the Bush administration any more. He was disgusting, rotten to the core, and his administration was criminal. Good riddance to bad rubbish. May your name be trompled on in the dust of revolted history and all that. But despite Bush's own sorrows as a leader, it made you long for more intelligence in this country, that we wouldn't elect a crumb like that, just because he was the first George Bush's son. How stupid the whole political scene was in 1999 and 2000, that we had to get this twerp and all the other twerps he brought with him.

One other thing. The portrayal of key figures in his administration was interesting. Cheney, just as sour and miserable as real life. Condi Rice, I think she got a severe portrayal. She seems amused but also very admiring and supportive of this dunce. It makes you wonder what makes her tick. Colin Powell tries to be a straight arrow but is bent by the persistence of the ideologues. Rumsfeld, virtually not there. Wolfy, seeking every in for ideology.

Good movie. Provokes thoughts. Provokes a lot of sorrow. Great ending.

Viva Italia

Whatever happened to the movie, "Viva Italia"? I never hear of it, in fact I've never heard anyone mention it.

But at allmovie.com they still have a reference to it:

This Italian black comedy is comprised of nine short stories all related to the theme that most men are selfish cads. At the 1978 Oscars, the film was nominated for Best Foreign film.

So it's not just my imagination that it existed. Since it was a 1978 film, that must have been the year I went to it. I was at the theater and I think I was the only person there. It was a cold, nasty day. They had the downstairs closed to help with heat, it seems, and so I sat in the balcony.

The kid of the ticket lady came up and told me it was about to start. I really enjoyed it, but don't remember much about it. It was episodic, just like the allmovie paragraph says, little vignettes. My biggest memory was the use of the song "All By Myself" by Eric Carmen, when someone blows up a plane, I believe it was, that his lover was on. So if that is meant to illustrate that men are "selfish cads," I guess it succeeds.

Another movie I'd like to see, but never hear of, yet I think is actually available, is "The Norman Conquests." Saw it on TV once and it was very funny. Never saw it again.

Mamma Mia!

Very good, sweet, funny, nice movie. I loved it, loved it a lot.

We have a lot of imagination when it comes to songs, don't we? I'm not too sure this has been true for all generations, or even recent generations, you know, the '30s and '40s. Songs were identified with the events of life, but I'm not too sure they were so closely intertwined as the soundtrack of people's lives.

This one does exactly what we all do with songs, which is identify with them so closely that sometimes we're married to songs and sometimes divorced. You hear a song at a funeral and it ruins it for you. Or there's some social awkwardness involving music, let's say, and suddenly certain artists have to be shelved for a few years. The sadness of life as well as the happiness, and where we were at the time, is tied in with albums, CDs, and singles.

I've had some warm fuzzies for some of Abba's songs over the years. I still have my original 45 of "Mamma Mia," which song I loved from the start. I wasn't much of an album fan, but that would be just because, no good reason. I'm sure I would love every album by them.

I saw the film tonight and to me it was great. It does with the songs just that very thing, uses them as a vehicle for the story. There are other musicals of course but this is a solid piece with one source of music. Very nice.

At first when the daughter busts out in song, it seems disorienting. But you quickly love it and think that's the way life should be. Everyone singing, running, frolicking, jumping off docks, just generally going nuts.

Capote -- Everyone's Friend

I just got done watch this film, DVD, last night. My watching of movies is not done at one sitting (or standing), but happens in 10-minute snippets, or more. When I get near the end I let it go. I'm doing some exercises, though, and so I'm watching during that time, then off till night or morning. I mention all this to make the point that moods, interests, and points of view fluctuate over days. So if you're watching a film, and you're depressed one day, happy the next, so-so the next, in pain for some reason, giddy for some reason, it's like you've watched five or six films instead of one. Meaning that the viewer makes some investment/projection in the film depending on what's going on. So with all that in mind, my review one day was five stars, another four, another three, another one. And not in that order.

I liked the movie for the way it was presented and also for the extra little insights -- hopefully true -- into the writer's life, his interactions in the whole Kansas murder case.

The lead, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, gives a beautiful performance of portraying Truman Capote. Going through my Rolodex, I guess I never knew Truman Capote, but I remember seeing him on TV quite a bit. My own thoughts about him at the time, he was a celebrity on TV whose basic character was one of humor; I remember everyone laughing at him and with him; his higher nasally voice was a characteristic that leaped out. I wasn't a reader so hadn't read anything by him. Truman Capote to me was a generic celebrity who showed up on all these shows, and people laughed at him and with him, and he seemed delightful but weird. That was then, this is now!

In the film, Capote is laboring over his book, In Cold Blood. It requires a lot of research, a lot of visits out to Kansas, a lot of visits with the murderers, mainly Perry Smith. The other guy, Richard Hickock, is more hardened, more detached from caring about it, a lot less introspective or mentally ambitious. But Perry has a whole artistic side, feels like he could be a famous public speaker, artist, writer, whatever. So Capote and Perry get this bond, and Capote tells Harper Lee that it is like they're two people from the same home, except Perry went out the back door and Truman went out the front.

Capote is duplicitous (to use a big word like Perry is always doing) in the story, helping the convicted men essentially to further his own cause, making sure it's a great book. So he's torn between his attraction for the men, mostly Perry, and his own interests, i.e., getting the whole story, then hoping they will be executed posthaste so he can get it finished. But because Perry won't tell the whole story -- holding back for whatever reason, because he has an appeal in the works, etc. -- Truman is wasting a lot of time with him, and they come to a disagreement over that. Truman lies to him several times, doesn't want Perry to know the book's title, doesn't want him to know what progress he's making on the writing, etc. I'm not too sure that's such a great tact to take, but, at least in the portrayal if not in real life (who knows?), Truman is a fine liar.

Anyway, he gets more distraught over the whole thing. He has a downward spiral sequence. Some of this is necessary for the movie, no doubt, man against himself or something. He's out of touch, out of sorts, plodding along, they're holding the phone up to his ear, and I'm dozing off, too. But he rallies -- get me to the gallows on time! -- rallies just in time to get to the prison -- huff huff -- to chat with Perry and Dick. This is interesting. The warden gives him five minutes, and they use up the whole five minutes in chronological time, real-time. But they don't say much, just human emotion. Then we get to it, the actual hanging, the hood, the steps, the last words -- different than what are reported in the book -- and Perry is dead. (Sorry about giving away the ending.)

OK. Is this a good movie? Yes. It definitely takes its time, zeros in, has a very quiet, understated way of presenting the situation, and has lot of good human, soulful interaction sorts of scenes. Truman lives in a couple different worlds, and certainly a different world than Perry except when they're one on one with all that deep eye contact. Truman knows Elizabeth Taylor, publishers, celebrities, has fancy places to go to and fancy things to do. Bon vivant! Man about town! And then he knows this Perry person, as sketched out above.

The movie makes Truman seem tragic at the end. Like he got what he wanted, but it ruined him in some sense. I don't know about that. That might've been necessary for the portrayal. It doesn't seem like it would've been too hard to put Perry in the past and press on to greater victories! But my own sympathy really wasn't for these guys. I can see them at the human level easy enough and sympathize that they had some hard knocks. But the brutal killing of that family would never be far from my mind. And as far as I'm concerned they got what they deserved, just a few years too late.

Good movie. Some memorable violence scenes, the shootings, cutting the throat. A memorable scene of the cotton-shrouded body in the casket. But a lot of this nastier stuff is interjected in quick, less than one second snaps. The essential flow of the movie is slow, deliberate, and insightful, very human.