What A Character: S.Z. Sakall

With his assortment of lovable supporting roles — befuddled yet helpful uncles and friends, slightly curmudgeonly shop owners, eccentric producers — S.Z. “Cuddles” Sakall is pretty much the definition of a Hollywood character actor. His variations on a discombobulated theme, often tinged with sly wit, charmed American audiences from the early ’40s through the mid-’50s, yet he’d been acting for 30 years before he ever set foot in Hollywood.

Who the heck is Gerö Jenö? That is S.Z. Sakall’s birth name, sometimes translated from his native Hungarian as “Jacob Gerö,” which is what appeared on his U.S. citizenship paperwork. Most sources say he was born in 1883, on February 2 in Budapest. (In case you were wondering, he was a ~~Capricorn~~ Aquarius.) Edit: Someone rightly commented that Feb. 2 is Aquarius, it’s squarely in the sign, not sure I got Capricorn from.

By the early 1900s, Gerö Jenö was writing scripts for musical-comedy theatre in Hungary. Several sources mention that he took his stage name, S.Z. Sakall, from the Hungarian phrase “szoke szakall,” in English “blond beard,” which he apparently grew to look older. He started acting at the age of 18. In the early ’20s, he moved to Berlin and appeared in his first film in 1927.

He continued working on stage and in film in Vienna and Berlin, and briefly had a production company, until 1933, when the Nazis took over Germany. Sakall, who was Jewish, had to go back to Hungary. In 1940, Hungary joined the Axis, giving the Nazis control of most of Europe. Many — Jews and others who objected to the regime — who were able to leave, did so. Those in the film industry made their way to either London or Hollywood, and formed an essential part of American and western European moviemaking for the next two decades, exerting tremendous influence on both the style and content of films. A look at the cast and crew list for Casablanca (1942) has a fair proportion of these refugees: director Michael Curtiz; composer Max Steiner; and actors Paul Henreid, Conrad Veidt, Peter Lorre, and Sakall.

RENAULT: Carl, see that Major Strasser gets a good table, one close to the ladies.
CARL: I have already given him the best, knowing he is German, and would take it anyway.

I can’t help but wonder how Sakall was affected by these lines and others in Casablanca. Perhaps the proximity of art to life was the reason Sakall at first refused the role of Carl the math-professor-turned-headwaiter, even though his Yankee Doodle Dandy director and fellow Hungarian Curtiz was helming, and the cast included top-name talent. Pure speculation on my part. What I do know is that all three of his sisters, his niece, and his wife’s brother and sister were murdered by the Nazis.

1948 photo from The Baltimore Sun: HAPPY HOLLYWOOD WEDLOCK — S.Z. (“Cuddles”) Sakall and his spouse Boeszike (he can pronounce it) have enjoyed nearly 30 years of wedded bliss. Boeszike comes to work with Cuddles nearly every day to help him with his lines, and bits of business, and for them love’s young dream is still way up there on rosy cloud No. 1. Cuddles, assisted by Boeszike, is soon to be seen in Warner Bros.’ “Whiplash.” / From: Warner Bros. Studio / Burbank, California

I don’t know for sure when Sakall acquired his famous nickname, Cuddles, or who gave it to him — his TCM clip cites Jack Warner as the source, but I’ve also heard that Doris Day coined it. He was first credited as “S.Z. ‘Cuddles’ Sakall” in 1945’s San Antonio.* I’ve read that he wasn’t fond of his nickname, and also that his charm, basic niceness and, um, cuddly exterior made it entirely appropriate both in film and in life.
In 1954, Sakall published his wonderfully-titled memoir, The Story of Cuddles: My Life Under the Emperor Francis Joseph, Adolph Hitler and the Warner Brothers. The book is out of print and the one used copy I could find goes for $480.10. If anyone wants to buy me this for Christmas…I’m just saying. He passed away from heart failure in 1955.

It wouldn’t be going out on much of a limb to say Cuddles is best-known for Casablanca. So it is fitting that Humphrey Bogart, Sidney Greenstreet, John Qualen, the film’s producer Hal Wallis, its director Michael Curtiz, its composer Max Steiner, and S.Z. “Cuddles” Sakall were all laid to rest in Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California.**

My Top Three Cuddles Roles

Ball of Fire Sakall plays one of 7 professors attempting to produce an encyclopedia. Because they’ve been cloistered in a mansion for 9 years, the group reacts strongly when showgirl Sugarpuss O’Shea (Barbara Stanwyck) turns up. As kindly physiology professor Magenbruch, he delivers many of his lines with a touch of mischief…his area of academic study is sex.

Christmas in Connecticut Sakall reunited with Stanwyck for this screwball comedy about a homemaking columnist who isn’t married and doesn’t have any kids. Cuddles plays her good friend, a chef named Felix, who is soon promoted to uncle. In my opinion, this is the quintessential Cuddles role, featuring all the befuddlement and exasperation for which he is known, together with the classic phrase, “It’ll be hunky-dunky,” Cuddle-ese for “hunky-dory.”

Casablanca As mentioned above, Sakall was unwilling to appear in this film. He tried to get Warner Brothers to pay him four weeks’ work, but the studio would only agree to three. His name was misspelled in the credits. But the character is essential to the story and serves as a sympathetic counterpoint to Humphrey Bogart’s brusque Rick.

*San Antonio starred Errol Flynn as a cowboy fighting cattle rustlers and Alexis Smith as the singer who falls in love with him. Sakall plays the singer’s manager, who repeatedly refers to riderless horses as “empty horses.” This phrase was most likely borrowed from, and a dig at, Casablanca director Michael Curtiz, with whom Flynn and David Niven notoriously clashed while filming Charge of the Light Brigade. (Niven called his second autobiography Bring on the Empty Horses.) There is at least one other connection to Casablanca: Dan Seymour, who played the bouncer Abdul, appears uncredited in San Antonio. The entire film is available on YouTube.

** Sakall’s nearest famous neighbors at Forest Lawn are the Ruggles brothers. Actor Charlie is in the same row; director Wesley is in the next row, across from Charlie.

Universal Studios Backlot Blogathon: DRACULA (Spanish version, 1931)

In which I explain how the Spanish-language version of Dracula led to American Pie. This post is part of the Universal Backlot Blogathon, hosted by Kristen at Journeys in Classic Film.

It seems to me that most film fans are familiar with Universal’s 1931 version of Dracula. Starring Bela Lugosi in the role that made him a star, it’s still a popular choice at Halloween, and it’s still capable of creeping you out. However, many are unaware of, and fewer still have seen, Universal’s Drácula, a Spanish-language version, also from 1931. Instead of Lugosi in the title role and Helen Chandler as Mina, en el versión español there are Carlos Villarias and 21-year-old Lupita Tovar as Eva (like Mina, but, as we’ll see, different). While Tod Browning shot the English version during the day, George Melford helmed the Spanish version by night on the same sets. The two productions also shared some of the same crew, who were able to learn from any mishaps or discoveries that occurred during the day. Browning’s version began filming on September 29, 1931; Melford’s on October 23.

dracula-espanol — Drácula (Carlos Villarias) menaces Eva (Lupita Tovar) in Universal’s Spanish-language version of DRACULA (1931).

The Depression had taken a slice of Universal’s profit pie, and, with the advent of sound, producing films for the once-lucrative foreign markets had gotten more expensive. A silent film could play anywhere in the world with an update to the titles, but effective dubbing was in the future. From The Vampire Book:

Universal’s Czechoslovakian-born executive Paul Kohner suggested a solution to the studio’s head, Carl Laemmle, Jr.: shoot foreign language versions of motion pictures simultaneously with the English versions, thus cutting costs by using the sets more than once. Kohner also argued that salaries for foreign actors and actresses were far less than those of Americans. Laemmle appointed Kohner head of foreign productions. The first result was a Spanish version of The Cat Creeps, a talkie remake of The Cat and the Canary, which Universal had originally done as a silent film. Released in 1930 as La Voluntad del Muerto, it was an overwhelming success in Mexico and made actress Lupita Tovar a star.
Kohner decided to make a Spanish version of Dracula and moved quickly to secure the youthful Tovar for the lead before she could return to Mexico. He chose Carlos Villarias (or Villar) for the role of Dracula, and secured a capable supporting cast with Barry Norton (“Juan” or Jonathan Harker) , Eduardo Arozamena (Abraham Van Helsing), and Pablo Alvarez Rubio (R. N. Renfield).

Not all was smooth sailing. In 2008, at the age of 98, Tovar recalled the vampire-like hours the Spanish-language cast and crew kept, plus another slight detail…Melford didn’t speak Spanish.

Despite any difficulties during the shoot, the Spanish-language version has everything the English-language version has, and more. The camera shakes off that early-talkie stasis and actually moves, following characters in pans or swooping tracking shots. The lighting is more complicated and the scenes which rely on effects are technically better; for instance, when Dracula appears out of a cloud of smoke. Tovar’s characterization of Eva is more dynamic, and she was given a more realistic wardrobe, than Chandler as Mina.

The only deficiency in Drácula is unfortunately…Dracula himself. Villarias’ performance, especially when compared with Lugosi’s, seems exaggerated and tends to evoke more laughter than fear. When I saw the film on the big screen a couple of years ago, the audience couldn’t help but laugh, during even the most suspenseful and/or horrifying scenes. I guess it could have been just a bunch of people catching the giggles from each other; you can judge for yourself ~~because the whole movie is on YouTube~~. [Edit: It’s no longer on YouTube, watch for it at your local arthouse.]

Villarias aside, Kohner certainly delivered value for money at Universal. Drácula cost just a tenth of what the English-language version had. Though it disappeared for a while in the mid-twentieth century, a revival in the 1990s returned it to prominence and many critics now rate it more highly than its English-language counterpart.

According to Michael Mallory, writing in Universal Studios Monsters: A Legacy of Horror, Kohner had another motive besides saving money for making Dracula in Spanish: preventing Lupita Tovar from resuming her career in Mexico. Mallory maintains that Kohner was “madly stricken” with Tovar, who wanted to pursue opportunities at home, and that the producer’s thrifty idea was at least in part a scheme concocted to keep the beautiful actress in the U.S. and on the lot. Whether this is true or not, Kohner and Tovar married in 1932 and remained together until Kohner’s death in 1988. Their daughter, Susan Kohner, who played Sarah Jane in Imitation of Life, had two sons — Paul and Chris Weitz, the writer/directors responsible for About a Boy, In Good Company, and yes, American Pie.

Dana Andrews Blogathon: BOOMERANG!

Dana Andrews and the films he made have long been favorites of mine so I was delighted when I found out that Steve Reginald (aka @sreggie) of Classic Movie Man was putting together a Dana Andrews Blogathon. The following is my contribution; see the rest of the excellent posts here.

I’ve chosen Boomerang! (1947), directed by Elia Kazan. The film is based on an actual case of an innocent man being convicted of murder in Connecticut in 1928 (though the city was changed from Stamford to Bridgeport). Kazan wanted to meld the documentary style of a newsreel with Hollywood moviemaking techniques, and he succeeded — this film is the direct ancestor of the “fact-based” docudramas with which we’re so familiar today. It was supervised by the same producer as the March of Time newsreels, Louis de Rochemont, much of it was shot on the run in real locations, and there’s no score. Despite this, Kazan later expressed dissatisfaction with the film, and with his star.

The no-nonsense credits — names typewritten on the plain white pages of a script, turned by an unseen hand — reflect the bare-bones staging of the film. The voice-over introduction makes it clear that arresting an the wrong person can happen anywhere: “people are the same everywhere,” it admonishes. Then the fast-paced action kicks off with the murder: The victim, a minister, is shot off-screen. The townspeople react with shock, disbelief and sadness that such a well-known and beloved man could be shot to death just like that; even the local hoodlums throw some money together for a wreath. We see the minister’s life in an economical flashback. He was part of the “reform” government that cleaned up the town, and he knew a lot of peoples’ secrets. The perpetrator could have been anyone. The description of the murderer is appropriately vague: “a man in a dark coat, light hat, medium build.”

Andrews plays State’s Attorney Henry Harvey, who is based on the DA in the real case. He’s first seen around 10 minutes in, when police chief “Robbie” Robinson (Lee J. Cobb) goes to Harvey’s office to give him an update. It’s clear that the case is already a pressure cooker. The local paper, a property of the reform government’s opposition, is taking the opportunity to make the police, and by extension, the incumbents, look incompetent. Editorials in print and on the radio are agitating the citizenry, neighbors are bickering, and even Harvey’s wife Madge (Jane Wyatt) is after him about the case. It’s no surprise that the shadow side of human nature would begin to dominate. When a “tramp” matching the description is found in Ohio, with a gun of the same caliber that killed the minister, and admitting to having left town when the murderer supposedly would have, he’s arrested and brought back to Connecticut. He’s actually a WWII veteran named Waldron (Arthur Kennedy), who is right out of the Army and can’t find a job. The police torture a confession out of him and the case goes to an inquest, which proceeds as you might expect.

Harvey is at first keen to convict Waldron, practically bounding up the stairs to tell the Chief that ballistics says the bullet and the gun match. But before he takes the next step in the process and indicts Waldron, the attorney decides to chat with him in his cell. This scene is when Andrews really begins to shine. He starts out stern, but as he listens to the prisoner’s story — Waldron has had a lot of bad luck after five years in the military — he shows us the faint glimmers of doubt beginning to creep into Harvey’s mind. Something just isn’t right. It soon becomes even more clear that the “authorities” are concerned with something other than justice — staying in office, getting elected, escaping public ridicule — except Harvey. Because when court is in session, and everyone is expecting an indictment, Harvey declares that Waldron is innocent. The rest of the film is a kind of trial, as Harvey recalls witnesses from the inquest and introduces new evidence to prove his statement true, all the while ending his political career.

Andrews is always underrated, but never more than by the director of Boomerang! Kazan is quoted on the TCM site as saying,

There was very little you could do with Dana….He could learn three pages in five minutes. He had a fantastic memory, even though he’d been up late drinking the night before. He’d come to work, dress up, and we’d roll him out. His style was okay in the movie, because he was playing a lawyer, and essentially there wasn’t supposed to be too much going on inside of him. But unfortunately that kind of acting leaves you with the feeling that there was nothing really personal at stake.

Maybe Kazan felt this way because this was an early work (his third feature), and he was still perfecting his style, but I can’t help but think he’s seeing a different film. Maybe he forgot to watch Andrews in the scene in the courtroom where, in order to recreate the crime, Harvey has one of his assistants shoot him with the loaded murder weapon. Andrews certainly isn’t melodramatic (though at one point, as Harvey deals with a gun-toting, blackmailing political hack, we do see a flash of Lt. McPherson from Laura). His performance is subtle and controlled, as in appropriate for a prosecutor, but it’s a very authentic. His Harvey isn’t perfect, just that rare person who will temper his ambition to see justice served. One of the ways Andrews makes him real is that he behaves differently at home than he does at work. (Most people do, maybe even you.)

This film isn’t on DVD, and Fox pulled most of it down from YouTube (hence the mediocre screenshots), so keep an eye for it on TCM. You don’t want to miss one of Dana Andrews’ best performances.

UPDATE: Boomerang! is actually available from ClassicFlix or via Amazon. You could do a lot worse than buying this film. Thanks Stephen!

Announcing the WHAT A CHARACTER Blogathon

Another blogathon! One with character! This summer is proving to be a landmark in the classic film blogosphere. Events are planned covering an array of fabulous classic films, movie stars and topics on all things movies.

Borrowing a catchphrase from our beloved home of the classics, Turner Classic Movies, Kellee of Outspoken & Freckled, Paula of Paula’s Cinema Club, and Aurora of Once Upon a Screen are organizing a tribute to the great character actors that so enhanced our classic movies. To the faces, the laughs, the drama presented by these wonderful actors whose names all too often go unrecognized we dedicate WHAT A CHARACTER!

Would Casablanca be as great without the laughs provided by S. Z. Sakall?
Would we want to look out Rear Window if not for the warnings of Thelma Ritter?
Can you measure how much Edward Everett Horton added to the fabulous Astaire/Rogers pictures?

We think these and so many others deserve their due. So, here we are with a blogathon in their honor.

The details:
If you are interested in contributing, please go to any one of the host sites and submit a comment with your choice. Please include the title and link to your blog. What or whom you choose to write about is open. We’d love to have everyone choose different subjects and topics because there are so many great character actors that deserve attention. But we’ll leave that up to you. As submissions come in, we’ll update the list of entries to give everyone an idea of what’s been chosen. A couple of weeks before the event, we’ll post a submission schedule. If you have any questions or suggestions, please contact any of us at any time.

The event banner is the one you see at the top of this post. It wasn’t easy coming up with one face, one character to focus on – so, a myriad of wonderful faces. It would be great if you can post one on your site to help us promote this event.

Who do all these faces belong to? Check out the Who’s Who in the WHAT A CHARACTER graphic page.

Host sites and contact information:

Kellee – @IrishJayHawk66
prattkellee (at) gmail.com
Outspoken and Freckled

Paula – @Paula_Guthat
paula.guthat (at) @gmail.com
Paula’s Cinema Club

Aurora – @CitizenScreen
citizenscreenclassics (at) gmail.com
Once Upon A Screen

Characters already spoken for (as of July 29):

Charles McGraw – Ivan – Thrilling Days of Yesteryear
Eddie “Rochester” Anderson – Terry – A Shroud of Thoughts
Edward Everett Horton – Jill – Sittin’ on a Backyard Fence
Eve Arden – Kellee – Outspoken & Freckled
Eric Blore – Lindsey – The Motion Pictures
Gail Patrick – Laurie – One Gal’s Musings http://onegalsmusings.blogspot.com/
Lee J. Cobb in ““We Raid Calais Tonight” – Ruth – Silver Screenings
Lew Ayres in HOLIDAY — Marya – Cinema Fanatic
Louise Beavers – Margaret – The Great Katharine Hepburn
Lucille Wilson and Maude Eburne – Patricia Nolan – Caftan Woman (9/23)
Marjorie Main – Lucy – Secluded Charm
Mary Wickes – Brandie- True Classics
Richard Jaeckel – Jack Deth
Sam Levene – Duke – Picture Spoilers
S. Z. Sakall – Paula – Paula’s Cinema Club
Thelma Ritter – Aurora – Once Upon A Screen
Una O’Connor – Anthony Strand
Victor Jory – Jacqueline T. Lynch – Another Old Movie Blog (9/24)
Walter Brennan in “To Have and Have Not” and Mercedes McCambridge – Le – Critica Retro
Ward Bond – Tonya – Goosepimply allover

Future Classic Movies: CITY OF LIFE AND DEATH

By Mark

One of the major problems with war movies is they can tend to be a little revisionist – or blatently laced with nationalistic propaganda – to the point that they shouldn’t be taken too seriously by any discerning future filmgoer. Strangely enough, an exception to this rule is an epic Chinese film made in 2009 about a seminal event which took place in the lead up to the Second World War. A masterpiece in every sense of the term, Lu Chuan’s poignant City of Life and Death is a worthy entry in Paula’s Cinema Club’s Future Classic Movies blogathon.

When it comes to military atrocities of the 20th century, not too many can top the brutality of Japan’s invasion of the Chinese city of Nanking during the late 1930s. In the six weeks following Nanking’s capture in mid December 1937, the Imperial Japanese Army systematically killed somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 people – including an estimated 57,000 prisoners of war on the banks of the Yangtze River in what has since been coined the Shaw String Massacre.

While this infamous mass murder of unarmed POWs does not occur until a third of the way through City of Life and Death, it more or less serves as a starting point for the remainder of the film’s grim narrative, which concerns itself not only with the plight of Nanking’s remaining citizens as they are forced to endure the barbarous and cruel occupation, but also the reaction of the invaders to their own behaviour while they execute their savage agenda.

As it works its way towards the Yangtze River slaughter, the movie follows the fortunes of two brave soldiers – Chinese lieutenant Lu Jianxiong (Liu Ye) and Japanese super private Kadokawa Masao (Nakaizumi Hideo), both of whom are key figures in a final, but somewhat futile, skirmish before the city’s inevitable capitulation.

The story then focuses on the dismantling of the Nanking Safety Zone – a 3.85 square kilometre refuge that had been set up by a group of foreign interests led by German (and Nazi) businessman John Rabe (John Paisley) just before the invaders arrived – after its inhabitants are betrayed by Rabe’s Chinese business assistant Tang “Mr Tang” Tianxiang (Fan Wei) as he attempts to negotiate his family’s passage to safety. (Interestingly the real life Rabe has been credited with saving 100,000 Chinese lives, putting him in the same league as fellow countryman Oskar Schindler, although the film does not really dwell on this point.)

By dividing the film into these two parts, writer/director Chuan convincingly paints a comprehensive picture of war at its very worst – firstly via one of the grittiest combat scenes seen in the cinema since the fight for Ramelle in Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, and then through the painful depiction of the Japanese occupation in which women are procured as sex slaves and repeatedly raped, prisoners are hung and/or beheaded (or, in one painful sequence, buried alive), a small child is ruthlessly thrown from an attic window, and injured soldiers are summarily executed in cold blood by makeshift firing squads.

Had City been in the hands of a lesser filmmaker, it’s possible that it might not have fully recovered after Jianxiong’s execution, such is the strength of Liu’s opening performance as the battle hardened Chinese soldier who, along with a few others, initially tries to stop most of his comrades from fleeing the city before making a desperate final stand against the Japanese invaders.

There are, however, too many other good things working for the film which keeps it in masterpiece territory for its two hour-plus running time. These include its stunning black-and-white cinematography (by Cao Yu and He Lei), its set design of mass destruction, as well as the strong performances of the supporting cast – perhaps the most noteworthy being Fan (as the hapless collaborator who ultimately redeems himself), Qin Lan (his wife “Mrs Tang”), Gao Yuanyuan (as Jian Shuyun, one of the zone’s Chinese administrators who defiantly stands up to the occupiers) and Japanese actor Kohata Ryu (playing the brutally pragmatic Second Lieutenant Osamu).

If anything, sitting through City of Life and Death is sort of akin to watching an extended version of the sacking of Vladimir by the Tartars in Andrei Tarkovsky’s 1966 classic Andrei Rublev. At the end of the day it’s not so much the human spirit that triumphs, but rather the horror.

Future Classic Movies: Round 2

To recap really quickly, the Future Classic Movies (FCM) Blogathon involves predicting films that will still be drawing audiences on TV, or a chip in our brains, or whatever form of communication exists, 30 or 40 years from now. All of the films were made during or after 2000; these will be as old then as the ones we watch on TCM now.

My FCM Round 2 pick is Moneyball (2011). It begins with a playoff disaster. In the 2001 post-season, the Oakland A’s squander their two-game lead over the New York Yankees, who win three games in a row. Their general manager, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), sits in the home stadium, flicking a transistor radio on and off, almost afraid to hear what’s going on. A couple weeks later, losing his best players on the free agent market, Beane is begging the A’s owner for more money. No way, he’s told. Make do with the lowest payroll in the league. His scouts are all older guys whose info on the players is half speculation and half gossip. When Beane takes a meeting with Mark Shapiro of the Cleveland Indians, he notices that all the older guys always look to Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a “player analyst” in the front office.

After the meeting, Beane grills Brand (in a parking garage à la “Deep Throat” in All The President’s Men). The latter admits that he has a radical, economics-and-statistics-based system for baseball: buying wins. That is, buying runs. Brand says, “Baseball thinking is medieval. They are asking all the wrong questions.” Beane is impressed. He hires Brand away from Cleveland and together they start to remake the A’s for the 2002 season. But there’s plenty of resistance, naysaying, and defiance from the scouts and the manager, Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who is on a 1-year contract and knows a poor season could end his career. He’s downright insulting about this new way of putting a team together. The big scary doubts of the fans on talk radio are interleaved with flashbacks from Beane’s crash-and-burn career and scenes from his current complicated personal life (ex-wife with smug husband, sweet daughter he doesn’t see enough).

Pitt and Hill were both nominated for Oscars and I was surprised by this when I finally saw the movie. The acting in this film is pretty much the definition of natural, which the Academy doesn’t always reward. I definitely agree with whoever said that unless Brad Pitt is in a movie right at the moment, everyone forgets that he is in fact a great actor. He is excellent here. Hill adds little touches — fidgeting, nervous looks — that make his Brand real (though the character is a composite). One of my favorite moments is when Brand is on his way out of Howe’s office and says, “You want this door closed?” Chris Pratt as catcher (turned first baseman) Scott Hatteberg gives an authentic performance as a guy scared out of his mind.

moneyball_car-low — The film’s cinematography is beautifully done by Wally Pfister, probably better known for his work with Christopher Nolan.

I’m not the biggest baseball fan in the world (though I do like going to Comerica Park) but if you like baseball, there’s enough behind-the-scenes intrigue about how deals are done to keep you interested. (“He’s talking to Dave Dombrowski! Wow, Steve Schott!”) Moneyball is really three movies, and Bennett Miller’s command of music, sound and closeups prove that there is crying in baseball, at least for me: the rise and fall and rise of a washed-up baseball player (Beane); a behind-the-scenes history of a baseball revolution; and the eternal struggle of originality and creativity against “we’ve always done it this way.”

Because if The Artist is about dealing with change, so is Moneyball. Or more accurately, it’s about the perseverance, determination and courage to not just adapt, but to change the rules, the situation, the world. That is of course what Beane did — he may have doubts about the new system, but he never really wavers. The film is a dramatization but his concepts were adopted by the Boston Red Sox and, two years later, they broke their 86-year World Series drought. And some underfunded political campaigns have been taking a look at Bill James’ “sabermetrics”, which paved the way for Beane’s system, and applying the former to their election races. And that is some consolation to anyone trying to find their way in a constantly changing world. And that is why, in 30 years, people will still be watching Moneyball, along with these other FCMs:
Big Fish, Happy Accidents, The Namesake, The Science of Sleep, and Walk the Line — The Motion Pictures

The 40-Year-Old Virgin — Impassioned Cinema

Requiem for a Dream — The Warning Sign

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind — PG Cooper’s Movie Reviews

Almost Famous — Journeys in Classic Film

City of Life and Death – Mark

Pride and Prejudice and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – Reveal Something More

Northfork – Left to my own devices

Call for submissions: Future Classic Movies

UPDATE #2 – May 25: I so enjoyed everyone’s posts and enough people asked if they could contribute to FCM that I’m going to do a second round. If you wrote for the original blogathon, and want to write about another movie, please do!

Same concept…Pick a movie from 2000 or later (more than one is OK too), and write about why you think it will endure to become a Future Classic Movie. Bonus predictions could be who will be hosting on this channel and how will movies be delivered to the consumer (hologram, chip in the brain, etc.)

Email me at paula.guthat [at] gmail.com to let me know which movie you want to do (try to pick one that wasn’t done already).

New dates…Put a link to the FCM Round 2 megapost http://wp.me/p243hv-fh somewhere in the first paragraph of your post and publish it on Wednesday, June 20. Feel free to use the graphic below. Then email me the link to your post. I will then compile all the links into one mega post and publish it on Thursday, June 21. Note: you will get a 404 when you try that link, but it’s there. It’s just not public yet.

~~UPDATE: The call for submissions is now closed. Links to everyone’s FCM posts may be found at the~~ FCM Blogathon Mega Post.

As a confirmed TCM addict, I’ve often wondered what movies from the 21st century would stand the test of time, like Casablanca, Gone With The Wind or Out of the Past. If there is even such a thing as TV and channels in the future. What would programming look like in 30 or 40 years from now?

And then I thought, why just think about it, when I’d love to hear other people’s ideas. And so the FUTURE CLASSIC MOVIES (FCM) BLOGATHON was born.

Everyone who wants to participate picks a movie from 2000 or later (more than one is OK too), and writes about why they think it will endure to become a Future Classic. Bonus predictions could be who will be hosting on this channel and how will movies be delivered to the consumer (hologram, chip in the brain, etc.)

Post your pick (s) to your blog on Wednesday, May 23 and email me the link to the post. Feel free to use the graphic above. I will then compile all the links into one mega post.

All I ask is that you to link to the megapost in your first paragraph somehow, using this shortlink: http://wp.me/p243hv-dT

So what do you think? If you’d like to participate, please DM me on Twitter @Paula_Guthat or email me paula.guthat [at] gmail.com with “FCM blogathon” as the subject, giving me a couple of choices of Future Classics you’d like to write about. Thanks!

Future Classic Movies: INCEPTION

By Julian Bond

Dreams Within Dreams Within Dreams…Fights in a Spinning Hotel Lobby…LEONARDO DICAPRIO!!

These are some of the many reasons why I believe that Inception will end up being a Future Classic Movie. When the movie first came out a couple of summers ago, everyone flocked to the theaters to catch it due to the super-mysterious plot at the time and mainly because of this being the first follow-up of director Chrstopher Nolan’s since this little old flick called The Dark Knight came. But once the dust settled at this film’s exciting conclusion (oh…darn you spinning top!), the conversations and endless debates on its plot details never seemed to stop.

Instead of being a one-note, too gimmick-ridden film, Inception proved to be a multi-layered film that still drives multiple repeat viewings (with no pun about its main dream plot intended). On top of this, its clever odes to the action, sci-fi, and psychological thriller genres help this go a long way in being a good long-term future classic movie that never seems to get old. Inception to me will definitely be one of those awesome flicks to turn on 10, 20 years from now and be a good way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

Along with Inception playing on a future classic movie channel, the one person who I strangely see taking on hosting duties on movie marathons in the future is actor/comedian Joel McHale of The Soup and Community fame. The man may not a super well-known respected actor and is currently just really known for drawing up goofy laughs, but I see that his years of being a good steady host on Soup could one day translate to a neat little side soundtrack for a nice afternoon movie marathon.

Future Classic Movies: BRINGING UP BABY, CASABLANCA & GOODFELLAS

By Jack Deth

Given the premise of what film and cinema may look like 40 years hence, I’ll opt for the convenience of handheld devices, flatscreen home entertainment centers and personal 3-D glasses, now that the very first, infant steps of the future Blue Sun Consortium so well-loved in Firefly has put out a bid for the AMC chain of theaters here in the U.S.

Now, as to what cinephiles, movie buffs and assorted hormonally-driven teens will want to view. The sky and its opposite end of the spectrum are the limit. Though Classics will always be present to fall back on. Be it for nostalgia sake. Or just to sit back and experience what good really is and can be. There will always be a healthy clutch of films in dust laden cans ready to be spun up on a projector. Or taken to a lab to be cleaned up, re-mastered and brought back to life in whatever form of medium is in use at the time.

To that end, allow me to prognosticate and put forth three choices for what may be viewed and enjoyed by those of all ages in the future.

Bringing Up Baby (1938)
The definition of screwball comedies of the 20th century stars Cary Grant as David Huxley, a clumsy, mild-mannered paleontologist with Harold Lloyd glasses. Deep in the Sisyphian task of assembling the skeleton of an ancient Brontosaurus, David only needs one bone to complete the task. To add to his stress, David is engaged and soon to be wed to a woman of means whose family can supply extra funding for David’s museum.

BuB-3 — Cary Grant gets mixed up with Katharine Hepburn and her zipper in BRINGING UP BABY

Seeking surcease, David decides to play some golf the next day and meets a striking, fast-talking Katherine Hepburn as Susan Vance, madcap extraordinaire and niece of his future mother-in-law. Susan plays by her own rules and speaks her mind. The repartee between David and Susan is as over-layered, stepped-on, and Hawksian as it is flat-out hilarious! With David constantly trying to catch up when to two meet again at a resplendent, elegant restaurant and night club.

Rapid-fire banter turns into a whispered argument that segues into an accidentally ripped and torn skirt of Susan’s evening gown. Which David tries to cover as best he can with his top hat and quick turns as they seek club’s front door. For a quick trip to Susan’s family’s palatial manse and manicured grounds. Where David is introduced to kith and kin, including a leopard from Brazil named ‘Baby’ and a terrier named ‘George,’ who slyly buried the essential Brontosaurus bone the ‘intercostal clavicle’ somewhere beyond the house while ‘Baby’ ambles away into the night.

What follows is a primer on comedic timing, quips, pratfalls and stalking through foggy woods and narrow streams. Interspersed with choruses of “I Can’t Give You Anything But Love” which Baby likes, as David and Susan search high and low. Accidentally break windows while seeking assistance. Run afoul of the law and are locked up in the Constabulary’s jail. Where Susan takes on the voice, slang and body language of a gangster’s moll. An incredibly funny few moments that involve a second leopard and mistaken identities. Until a friend of the family arrives and straightens things out.

David goes his way. Susan and Baby go theirs. The intercostal clavicle is recovered and Susan takes it to a now busy David high atop the incomplete Brontosaurus on tall scaffolding to make amends. When Susan sees a nearby flimsy ladder…

Casablanca (1942)
The film that solidified Humphrey Bogart as a romantic leading man still manages to pack a heck of a lot of story and tell it well within its 102 minutes. Wondrously crowded, well designed and executed sets transport to a stylized Morocco, Casablanca, its shadowy casbahs and Rick’s Cafe Americain. The hub of all things curious and worth noting by the Vichy constabulary and its German occupiers.

Bogart plays Rick Blaine, expatriate American cafe and casino owner with a fixed roulette wheel that pays on 22. Who drinks alone, plays chess against himself. Has few friends. Is rarely impressed. While exuding an air of supreme clever confidence. Master of his own fate in a corner of the world where suspicion runs rampant and others beg, borrow and steal for exit visas and a way out.

Enter into this world skullduggery, Ilsa Lund. Spectacularly gorgeous Ingrid Bergman. Rick’s old flame from happier times in Paris, just before the Germans rolled in. Unfortunately, Ilsa has brought her husband along. Suave and elegant Victor Laszlo. Leader of the Free French movement and Public Enemy #1 of Conrad Veidt’s Major Heinrich Strasser and his minions. Who would be quite content to keep Ilsa and Victor right where they are.

Who, but director Michael Curtiz and writers Philip and Julian Epstein could wrap a deliciously moody love story around this foundation? As Rick politely reintroduces himself to Ilsa. Sparks flare to life. Aware that she and Victor are in need of a pair of exit visas that Rick possesses. The possibilities are endless as emotions sway. I’ll leave it right there for you to draw your own conclusions.

Goodfellas (1990)
The life of Henry Hill. A Brooklyn kid who says, “As far back as I can remember. I always wanted to be a gangster,” is given the full blown Martin Scorsese treatment. In full blown, lush color. From Henry’s early years hanging out on street corners and parking cars for the meetings of made men he idolized. To huge tips being taken under the wing of slow moving, always cautious ‘Paulie’ Cicero. Henry climbs up the lower tiers of organized crime. Befriending a young young Joe Pesci giving wondrous psychotic life to Tommy DeVito and his friend, Jimmy ‘The Gent’ Conway, played with low-key deliberation by Robert De Niro.

GF-3 — Robert De Niro and Ray Liotta in GOODFELLAS

Life is good as Henry dumps school in favor of selling hijacked cigarettes to any and all. Until he is arrested for the first of several times. Surprisingly, the pinch helps rather than hinders Henry’s slow, yet steady climb up the criminal corporate ladder. Henry, now played by a smooth faced, lean Ray Liotta is all style and flash, but not a lot of substance. Part of Jimmy’s crew, Henry learns the ins and outs of the finer points of hijacking semi tractor trailers along the New Jersey Turnpike. When not robbing Idlewild Airport of its employees’ payroll. or burning down restaurants or clubs slowly taken over by Paulie and his friends.

Henry falls in loves with, pursues and courts Karen. A stunning Lorraine Bracco with visits to famed New York nightclubs. Filmed in Steady Cam from the rear entrance. Through the kitchens and to a quickly laid out ringside table in time for Henny Youngman and complimentary champagne. Then taking the time to brutally beat a competitor close to death with a pistol who. Making Karen an accessory after the fact, by giving her the pistol to hide.

GF-2 — Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco enjoy the good times in GOODFELLAS

The good life continues. Henry marries Karen. The money rolls in and heists get bigger and bigger. Until one night when a made man runs afoul of Tommy. Is killed messily and buried somewhere Upstate. Then exhumed six months later when Jimmy finds out the land is going to be developed. The wheels start to come off. As Henry takes a mistress and Karen finds out. Threats are made and Paulie tells Henry to get back with Karen. Henry does. Then he and Jimmy go down to Florida to collect some betting markers and draw a delayed bust from the FBI.

Henry discovers drugs behind bars, though life there is better than for most. Against Paulie’s wishes, he continues in the trade as a major heist goes bad. And those involved get very sloppy and spend very conspicuously. Then pay for it rather sloppily to the strains of ‘Layla’ by Derek and the Dominoes. I’ll end it here, lest I get into Spoiler Territory.

Overall consensus
I’ve chosen three films which have stood the test of time. Masterpieces assembled by directors with the clout and ability to get superior writers, cinematographers, set designers. Then turn it all over to superior casts anxious to make their marks. Creating benchmarks that have aged well and improved with time. And will be amongst the first chosen decades from now.

What do you think of Jack’s picks? Are there other films that are already considered classics now and will remain so?

Future Classic Movies Blogathon MEGA POST

To recap really quickly, the Future Classic Movies (FCM) Blogathon involves predicting films that will still be drawing audiences on TV, or a chip in our brains, or whatever form of communication exists, 30 or 40 years from now. The vast majority of the posts involve films made during or after 2000; these will be as old then as the ones we watch on TCM now.

My FCM pick is The Artist (2011). Regular readers of this blog know that I adore this film. It is a little miracle — a silent film premiering in the 21st century. It was made by people who really love movies and stocked their film with tons of homages, tributes and shoutouts to the classics. It has romance, humor, suspense and melancholy. The acting in it is superb. It was beautifully written, art-directed, and shot. There is something about it that makes me cry every time I see it. (I’ve actually plunked money down to see this three times. Once I was actually on vacation.) It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, and it won five: Best Director, Best Picture, Best Costume Design, Best Score and Best Actor. But none of these reasons are why I chose this film to endure into the middle of this unpredictable 21st century and beyond.

the-artist-scream — Sometimes it’s all a little too much…Jean du Jardin as George Valentin

Every day our lives get a little more complicated and a little more technological. As recently as 2006, the vast majority people had only a vague idea of what Facebook was. No one had heard the term “social media.” Phones were decidedly dumb; they made calls, and that was about it, at least in the US, where SMS hadn’t yet caught on. Now billions of people are using social media every day. Approximately 20,000 tweets go out every 10 seconds. You can watch a movie, video-chat with someone on the other side of the world, or run a business, all from a smartphone. And the pace of new technology only seems to accelerate rapidly. Economically, the upheaval of 2008 seems to have stabilized somewhat but lots of people lost their jobs and homes, and technology is ending some jobs and creating others. Everything in life is changing so quickly that the term “radical transformation” comes to mind, although nothing is happening quite that fast. I love all the technology, but sometimes even I feel a little overwhelmed, a little bit blindsided…a little bit like George Valentin. He would understand if he was here, because this is what The Artist is at least in part about: coping with change. (It’s about love, loyalty, friendship, the creative process, paying it forward, and really great shoes as well. But I digress.)

The world the characters inhabit is completely shaken with the advent of sound, and they each provide an example of a different coping strategy, from stubborn disregard (George) to grudging acceptance and pragmatism (Al Zimmer, the director played by John Goodman) to leveraging new opportunities that open up and helping others to reconcile themselves with a new reality (Peppy). We’ll all have to adapt, and since we’ll be adapting well into the foreseeable future, this film is always going to be relatable and relevant. There’s a few people out there who didn’t like this film. To those people I say, get used to it…The Artist isn’t going anywhere, and neither are the rest of these picks, all films that I believe will persevere:

Hunger — ILuvCinema

Children of Men — It Rains… You Get Wet

Gladiator, Hugo, Midnight in Paris — FlixChatter

Zodiac — Once Upon a Screen

Batman Begins — The Filmic Perspective

Crash, Gladiator — The Focused Filmographer

The Hunger Games — Classic Movie Man

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo — Reveal Something More

Jane Eyre (2011) — T. K. Guthat.com

Bringing Up Baby, Casablanca, Goodfellas — Jack Deth

Inception — Julian Bond

The Hours — ChampaignMatt

from The Cinementals:

Mulholland Drive — Will

Kill Bill, Vol. 1 & 2 — Jill

O Brother Where Art Thou — Carley

Bride & Prejudice — Jennifer

There Will Be Blood — Drew

The Toy Story trilogy — Michael

Brick — Chris

Update: Two more great FCM choices are in:

Iron Man — ZombieDad

Sideways — Dan from Top 10 Films

Many thanks to everyone who participated in the very first blogathon I’ve ever run. I hope you had as much fun writing these as I did reading them. To paraphrase a title…there will be more 🙂