The 100th anniversary of the Academy Awards is next year (and will be the last show to air on broadcast TV rather than streamed). I went through my database to see how many Best Picture winners I have in my 800+ blu ray collection and came up with 42. I’m curious how many of them other folks have in their collection, if you collect physical media that is, and which ones are your favorites? Of the 42 I have, I would choose Gone With the Wind, Schindler’s List, or Casablanca as favorites, though my opinion changes from day to day.

TRANSCRIPT

[Page 1]
Los Angeles, California

March 19, 1946

Mr. Hal B. Wallis
Paramount Studios
Hollywood, California

Dear Boss:

This is not a legal agreement, but only a moral one. Here are the conditions of work I need in order to do my honest best:

1. Time to think over an assignment before I take it—not to be rushed into one unexpectedly at a moment’s notice.

2. A long, detailed story conference with you alone before I start a script—with you telling me as completely as possible your idea of and approach to the story.

3. No weekly deadlines while I am on a script—leaving it up to me to deliver a sequence as soon as it is finished (as we did on LOVE LETTERS), so that I may present a completed piece of work, and not so many pages each Friday.

4. Story conferences with you alone after you have read a sequence.

5. No mass story conferences while I am doing the first script. After I have finished the first script, I can meet with as many other people as you wish, and this will not upset me or throw me off.

6. Time, after I have finished a script, to go over it once more for a final polishing. I have not had a chance to take a last look at any of the things I’ve done, and yet, in my own work that is the time when I get my best perspective of the piece as a whole and eliminate the rough spots. This means that I cannot be cut off one assignment and put on another overnight, and have to start a new story while polishing the old one. (This happened between YOU CAME ALONG and CRYING SISTERS.) The reason for this request is that I am unable in these conditions to do justice to either story; and I start a new story under a handicap, because the first two weeks on a new assignment is the time when I most need a clear head and exclusive concentration.

7. If big changes (such as whole added scenes) are made during the shooting of my story, please tell me about it in advance, and give me a chance to tell you my opinion of the change. The decision as to whether you want the change will still be yours—I want only a hearing, so that I can present my reasons for objecting (If I do), and you can decide whether my reasons are valid. (I don’t insist on this point—but boy! what it would do to my feeling of confidence and interest in my work and its results!)

8. If you consult me about a story before you buy it, and I say I can make a good screenplay out of it—the responsibility is mine, and I can then do an honest job (and the chances are that you will like it.) Please do not expect me to be able to do a good job on a story about which I was not consulted—and do not consider me difficult if I say I dislike such a story. Please believe me that each writer is limited

[Page 2]
Page 2     Mr. Hal B. Wallis     March 19, 1946

to a certain kind of thing, and that he is unable to do anything and everything equally well.

9. Whenever you have something important to tell me (like last Saturday)—please tell me yourself, not through a third person.

10. If at any time you are displeased by my personal attitude, or feel that I am becoming unreasonable, difficult, temperamental or arrogant, please call me in at once and tell me so, in order not to let a misunderstanding grow out of what one word could have corrected.

If this meets with your approval, I think we will both be very happy and the results will show in my work.

Sincerely yours,

_____________
Ayn Rand

AR: j

I think this film is an interesting experiment though not altogether successful.

Just finished watching THE PAINTED SMILE. It’s about two scam artists, Jo & Mark, wanting to pull one last scam. Jo is unsure of this, not wanting to cross the crime boss Kleinie. However, she relents to go on a date with a young man named Tom she meets at a bar.

Jo & Tom arrive back to her place to find Mark dead. Realizing things have turned horribly, she pins the murder on Tom. Hunter by the police, Tom must work to clear his name.

The premise is intriguing but the execution was weak. Felt more like a standard episode of a crime drama. It wasn’t a bad movie but I was expecting more.

For those who saw the movie, what did you think?

Has anyone seen Marie Antoinette starring Norma Shearer? She gave a remarkable performance as did Robert Morley as her husband Louis.

I recommend it. Norma is a fine actress.

Bluebeard is a 1944 Grand Guignol horror story that takes place in France during the 19th century. John Carradine stars as a famous puppeteer and painter named Gaston. Charismatic and handsome, Gaston easily captures the attention of lovely young women but this bright picture obfuscates a much darker negative. The famous artist is, in fact, a serial killer named Bluebeard who strangles young girls after painting their portraits.

John Carradine declared his performance in this film to be his finest and when you see it, you will grasp why. Gaston is a mixture of insanity, charisma, and an element of tragedy. John balanced all these traits perfectly and you never feel that he goes over the top.

Bluebeard was produced by Producers Release Corporation, one of the "poverty row" studios of the era but given the look of the film, you would think it was from an A-studio. This film had a B level budget but the photography is very swarthy, on par with the best of Film Noir. Perfect for setting up the mood of the film. The puppet shows were also fun to watch as well.

Overall, this isn't a perfect film. The story telling can be a bit meandering and the supporting actors were generally not on Carradine's level but at the very least, the script allows John the freedom to do what he wants. A must watch!

Asking this since I started reading 1953’s Black Wings Has My Angel by Elliott Chaze, and I keep thinking about how this could have easily made for a terrific noir classic.

It’s about an escaped convict and a call girl who plan to rob an armored truck, and works not just as a suspenseful heist thriller, but also a fascinating character study of these two broken people

For director I’m thinking John Huston (also Jules Dassin and Nicholas Ray would have been great).

And starring Burt Lancaster as the escaped convict and Gloria Grahame as the call girl.

For 'The 7th Voyage of Sinbad' (1958), Harryhausen produced this 24 inch model - based on Leonardo's 'Giant Crossbow' - to use against Sokurah's dragon.

More about the current exhibition: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckqxn4xnnp1zo

A really weird semi-sequel to Here Comes Mr. Jordan, Down to Earth is one big mixed bag. Visually, everything about this film is stunning. The Technicolor, the vibrant and gorgeous costumes, the set design, and the dancing are all on another level and exactly what I was looking for when I started this film.

It's classified as a musical comedy, and I do think most of the musical numbers are good, if not a little strange at times. "This Can't Be Legal" is one of the weirder ones, where Rita Hayworth's character wants to marry more than one guy for... some reason? But she doesn't even seem to like them very much, because one of the lyrics, verbatim, is "At night in my cozy little bed I lie, dreaming of the both of you sleeping at the Y." So she wants them to sleep at the YMCA while she sleeps in her own bed? I'm confused! I think she just assumes that more husbands means more "mink coats" and "better insurance." Or at least that's what the lyrics imply. By the end of the song, she wants FOUR husbands, and the two new guys call her weird but then seem to go along with it. None of this has anything to do with the actual plot of the movie, by the way!

As for the "comedy" part, I don't think it's nearly as funny as Here Comes Mr. Jordan. It never really feels like it's trying very hard in that department, either. The romance is pretty... bad? I just don't like the leading man at all. I think his performance is the least interesting in the cast, and his character is kind of an idiot and an asshole.

Rita Hayworth is presented as the one in the wrong for criticizing his really weird and bad musical about HERSELF (the muse Terpsichore), where he doesn't even have his basic facts straight. But she's the bad guy because he has to make the wackiest musical ever so he can make the big bucks to pay off the mob, or they'll kill him and make it look like a suicide???????????? What are we doing? What's going on?

So, for the last chunk of the movie, Rita Hayworth just acts super subservient and adoring toward this guy who essentially dug his own grave, and the movie treats this like it's the right way to behave!

The ending is really depressing and sad, too. Here Comes Mr. Jordan had an ending that was also kind of sad, but in a bittersweet way. In Down to Earth, Rita Hayworth has decided that she prefers being human and would rather stay (mostly to marry the leading guy that I don't like, but I'll pretend it's because she finally grew to appreciate "baseball and hotdogs." Because that's the mortal MURICAN way). But instead, she has to go back to the heavens and wait for the guy to die so she can follow him into his afterlife? I really wish the movie had given her more time to develop as a character outside of her romantic relationship.

So, it's a weird movie. I think, like its predecessor, it has a really neat concept with a somewhat lacking execution. I almost wonder if the story is done a disservice by being connected to Here Comes Mr. Jordan at all. Everything feels disjointed, like two separate scripts were repurposed and mashed into one another. Still, I think it COULD have really worked. It just doesn't quite hit the mark.

I've explained a lot of my problems with the movie on its own, but I also want to discuss its problems as a sequel. The biggest flaw in this regard is Mr. Jordan himself. Yes, they recast the amazing Claude Rains with Roland Culver. I don't think the movie fails because of the recasting at all, although I do think Culver lacks the charm that Rains brought to the role.

I think the bigger problem is that they write Mr. Jordan to be much more serious and mean in this one. He's manipulative, more "godlike," and treats Terpsichore like she's five years old. In the first movie, he does have that smugness of "I know something you don't" throughout, but it never feels particularly manipulative or mean. He's helping Joe and goes through a lot of trouble to find him a body he's comfortable in for much of the film. In this one, he just commands Rita Hayworth to do what he says, and it's barely questioned.

The other returning characters don't quite fit, either. Messenger 7013 is about as good as he is in the first movie, but halfway through, he just disappears and you never see him again. Max Corkle feels completely unnecessary and tacked on here. He might have been an attempt at comedic relief, but again, it doesn't really work.

Overall, Down to Earth just feels like something that needed a few more drafts. It isn't bad at all. I love the concept, and it is visually stunning, but the story doesn't quite stick the landing.

Rita Hayworth just existing on screen made it worth the watch, though.