2007 SHORT ENDS

Was 2007 ever a fast year. It went by at warp speed.

I started blogging back in July after a few years of thinking -- if I ever gave it any thought at all -- that blogging was not for me. Why would I want to put up what I had for breakfast for all to see?

After all... who cares?

I was aware of political blogs and news blogs. I am politically aware but feel that there are others who are top notch in this arena.

News blogging is interesting -- the alternative view. When I first heard about blogs, many postulated that they would change the way we get news, or at least the real story behind what was going on.

Like many projections or guesses, this did not exactly happen. While the Internet is important as a news gathering tool, most folk still get their news from the major television networks (at least in the good ol' US of A.)

A friend prompted me to start a blog, and after some brief deliberation, I decided to go with it. What you ended up getting is someone who not only talks too much in day to day affairs, but someone who seems to have no problem transposing this transcendent quality to Blogville.

I am having a lot of fun. Thanks, again, to all those who have commented on my various postings. Believe me when I say that it makes my efforts even more rewarding. And thanks to all of you who just drop in and read.

Some odds and ends here:

Someone has already e-mailed me asking if I have a copy of Cyborg 2087. I do not but a friend of mine can get a copy from his supplier for $14. (I might just go in for half.)

I hope to be able to blog about that 1978 Ronnie Howard classic tv movie, Cotton Candy, starring his bro Clint, in the next few weeks or months. As soon as I see it again I will comment.

And Ashley, I am still waiting to see your writings.

POSTER CYBORGS

While on a Cyborg 2087 theme, a friend of mine sent me this image of the movie's poster; the one-sheet. I found the poster below... pilfered from a movie website.

How come they made such cool movie posters back then? Now distributors just take a photo from the production and wrap it with effects and type. There is nothing wrong with that, but if I were a 10 year old kid, I would probably gravitate to the movie theatre displaying these showbills.

Pull out the popcorn and roll the movie; cue the cool music...

CYBORG 2087, NOW

Cyborg 2087 is a little science fiction movie from 1966 which stars Michael Rennie. It was a late night television staple for years. The last time I remember watching it was back in 1980 or thereabouts.

Cyborg is a fun picture. At least that is the way I remember feeling about her on my last viewing. Not that I have really looked around for Cyborg 2087, but I don't think I have ever seen a copy on VHS. I know I have never seen a DVD copy anywhere... even one of the 'dodgy' strain.

Make no mistake, Cyborg is what would be termed a cheapie. But I remember being caught up in the story. It was never boring and there were some freaky representations of the future.

By the way, that 'screen capture' above is from this movie. It is, of course, a painting, but I was struck at how much it looks like a depiction of the way the Toronto skyline is going. (A snapshot from the Gardiner Expressway.)

Guess how many of those structures are condos...

THE PREQUELIZER

Something made me think of the Star Wars "Prequel" films. (Probably, thinking about bad movies made me think of the infamous three.)

I was there for the original release of Star Wars, the original. To this day I think it is grand entertainment and a pretty good film. Lucas is/was a good director. (He had already proven this with American Graffiti.) His story for the first on deck was broad but also carefully and efficiently condensed in such a way as to make it palpable for the masses. And to convince the masses that it was important. Perhaps it was.

Perhaps it still is. Recent history has proven the original to be of definite quality. In case you haven't guessed what I mean by "recent history" (and I don't expect everyone to be a Kenneth Clark), this is the period of 1999 to 2005 in the Star Wars timeline; the so-called Idiotic Period.

The truth is I was never a huge Star Wars fan, I just liked it (which is enough). The dead years between the first batch -- the "good movies", minus Return of the Jedi to a degree -- and the second were not too dead for me. I didn't care if Lucas made another installment in this franchise or not. Years pass and we become interested in other things. (Time is passing even quicker, now.)

So when the first of the second batch, that being The Phantom Menace (or "Episode 1"), came along in 1999, I had no strong urge to see it. I eventually did, on tape, and realized I was smart to stay home. The contraption was every bit as bad as I heard it was. What a mess.

Attack of the Clones exploded along three years later. I had no urge to run out and see it. Same as above; but thought it even worse. Surprisingly boring even though there were an awful lot of action scenes. (Which generally means they are boring anyway... something many producers do not understand.)

What?! Revenge of the Sith was next? Really?

It wasn't as bad, but...

The year was 1983: My Star Wars fan pal, Chris, had just seen Return of the Jedi. He saw it before I did; and at the stupendous University Theatre in Toronto.

Chris, remember he is a big fan, looked me in the eye and said, "I liked it, but I don't care if George Lucas never makes another Star Wars film again".

Oh, prescience!

CORONATION IN COURT

The CBC played two back-to-back episodes of Coronation Street tonight. One of the leads, a young woman who I'm familiar enough with even in my very infrequent 'Corrie' observing, was in a court room on trial for murder. What?! Last time I saw her she was romancing some bloke.

I quickly realized she must have killed him. After some time I learned that she pummeled him over the head with what appeared to be a giant, and heavy, figurine.

Now, my memory is pretty good in such matters. I seem to remember that a year or so ago, another young woman killed someone. Yes, she killed her father by pummelling him over the head with an adjustable spanner.

Holy smokin's. There is a lot of murders on that street! It could be renamed "Murderer's Row", I would think.

Is the murder rate really that high in merry olde England? I do hope this is just an epidemiological blip!

CORONATION

Canadian 'Corrie' (Coronation Street) fans probably took a break from their Christmas dinners last night to watch An Audience with Coronation Street (2006) on the CBC last night. I admit right now that I ended up watching a good chunk of it.

This was a retrospective of the show's more than 35 years on the ITV network.

I need my head examined. An Audience was self consciously bad. Talk about self indulgent wanking. The studio bleachers were full of Coronation Street actors. All I thought while watching this abomination, and this is proof that directors must be careful what closeups they cut to, is that some of the actors did not really want to be there. A couple of closeups that I saw revealed either confusion or the expression of "this is so lame".

For some reason I become morbidly fascinated after seeing a special such as the above.

... check out my next blog posting!

TOTAL CONTROL

I was out with friends yesterday; having a good time eating, drinking, and talking. After we disbanded I decided to see a film at the Bloor Cinema. I could make it for the 9 p.m. film. It didn't matter what was playing. The film was Control (2007); about Ian Curtis and his band, Joy Division.

A friend of mine is a Joy Division fan: He was the one who told me about the 1970s British band and the new movie made about some guy who helmed it by the name of Ian Curtis. I had not heard of Joy Division but was aware of the band it morphed into... New Order.

Control is one fine film. The director, Anton Corbijn, has a sure hand and appears to understand the language of film (which is not as common as believed). As can be surmised by the above, I had no preconceptions, really, about this film and the story it was telling. I was absorbed into world of Ian Curtis and his band. Sam Riley is outstanding as Curtis; as is Samantha Morton as his suffering wife. (Morton wrote a biography on her husband -- "Touching from a Distance" -- which this film is based on. She is also one of the producers of Control.)

Often what happens with these bio-pics is that the filmmakers feel they have to document the rise of a group by indexing or charting everything from the first meeting of the future band mates, through the first gigs, the signings, the news reports, people snapping up record albums and so on, to take the audience through the story. What Control does is use a lot of shorthand to illustrate the above.

(Many films use shorthand, of course, but often use clumsy narrative instead. Clumsy in the sense of inefficiency.)

Probably due to budget as much as anything, Control's producers assume we the audience know the usual spiel regarding the band bio-pic. Sure, there is the first signing scene -- in blood, no less -- and various club appearances, but what we get more of is a sense of who Ian Curtis is and what his environment is.

We know how a band "makes it". Time to tell a story. A story about a young man who has various problems, including the medical type, but one who is expected to perform -- he is the front man for the band, and the one most want to see.

My perspective is, see this film if you like good cinema. My perspective is one of ignorance; one who barely knows one band from another, but still likes a smashing story well told.

I do like the music.

Control plays a few more times at the Bloor Cinema... http://www.bloorcinema.com/

COMMENTING THANKS

This is an open letter blog posting... if that makes any sense.

I want to thanks all those who have commented over the weeks and months. This makes me feel good (all over) and only encourages this pen to keep refilling.

What really made me post this entry is when I just checked and saw the responses to JOHN HARKNESS.

Just goes to show you that movie reviewing or criticism is an emotional, for lack of a better word, issue for some.

Just to set the record straight: The best mainstream American movie ever made is The Sound of Music.

(Tom Hanks may have said it best when he stated at the AFI, "Citizen Kane isn't the best movie ever made. The best movie ever made is Jason and the Argonauts".)

Screw objectivity.

End of discussion.

FRAME DISCREET'S FILM-TO-'TAPE'

I just finished spearheading a project to transfer a few thousand feet of archival 8mm and Super-8 motion picture film to DVD (and data files). As per my responsibility, I had to look around for the best transfer system available in Toronto and, needless to say, an agreeable price.

Earlier in the year I found him. His name is Justin Lovell and he runs an outfit called Frame Discreet. He is based on Yonge Street (within a one minute walk of the 'Lawrence' TTC subway station), here in the fabulous city of Toronto. Based on the large quantity of film, Justin gave me a good price.

I won't go on too much more about his outfit... but I will say that I was very happy with the technology and the resulting picture quality. Both sharpness and colour rendering are superior. Justin also cleans all rolls before he sends them through his transfer apparatus.

Keep in mind that while a few companies out there do offer the service, and at low prices, they use a primitive system in comparison. They also do not clean the rolls beforehand -- so all the loose dirt and dust is there forever -- and often do not even watch or monitor the transfers. The end result is that you sometimes get a nice new DVD-R of your home movies with jumping splices, chattering images, and other lovely phenomena.

If you don't mind spending more money, then Frame Discreet is the way to go. And if you are a filmmaker who wants their footage to look top notch, then Frame Discreet is the way to go.

Frame Discreet's website... http://www.framediscreet.com

JOHN HARKNESS

I was reading the obituary page of the Globe and Mail newspaper yesterday when the name of John Harkness caught my eye. (I had just finished reading a story on the passing of a veteran RCAF officer. A man who was active during the Avro Arrow days.)

The story on Harkness was just a blurb in the right hand column. I thought he would have earned a larger obit than that.

Harkness was known primarily in Toronto as the long time resident film critic for Now Magazine. My impression is that he became more opinionated as the years went on; if Now readers' letters (to the editor) are any indication. Harkness appeared to upset or set off many readers with his 'unreasonable' reviews of motion pictures. He had his opinions and that was that: They were immovable.

Some called him "The Hark Ness Monster".

Like the famous American film critic, Pauline Kael, Harkness had an opinion or attitude that did not sit well with a lot of readers. Snobbery, I think it is interpreted as being. I call it being very well informed.

While I like reading Kael -- even though I disagree with a lot of what she said, film to film -- I can't say the same of John Harkness. I detected a bit of baggage in his reviews; although, this is not an uncommon commodity in critics. Theatre critics, anyone?!

However, like him or not, Harkness didn't appear to feel obligated to tell some what he thought they wanted to hear.

Maybe, some day soon, a publisher will release a book of Harkness' reviews. A compendium of film reviews, like what had been done for Canadian film critic, Jay Scott. Now there was a superlative reviewer; and one of a rare intelligence. Even though I did disagree with an awful lot of what he had to say... film to film.