bluepiano

I agree that Phil Harris was bland and probably miscast, but I enjoyed the movie for its unrelenting silliness. Silly in a good way. Like the moviemakers were having fun kidding us and we were in on the joke. Some of the musical numbers involving cross cutting, like between people singing parallel songs on two different boats, and incorporating the sounds of people working on the boat, were quite creative. It was still early in the sound era and it's like they were flexing their muscles. There's also much pre-code sauciness, like when one of the scantily clad stowaway "nieces" says to the other, "every time you have a drink you start taking your close off." And I'm another. I never understood why it's so frequently rated at the bottom of MGM musicals. Maybe some people just don't like any "serious" content injected into their musicals. But it has so many great numbers - "Baby You Knock Me Out," with Cyd Charisse (looking gorgeous), the dance with the trash can lids, the already mentioned Gene Kelly on roller skates. Other pluses for me are seeing Michael Kidd in a rare featured role (Maybe his only one) and the always fun Dolores Grey. Her "Thanks But No Thanks" number is a hoot. Andre Previn did get an Oscar nomination for the score.

Sometimes I find it hard to believe that some of these relatively young chefs could've already opened so many restaurants. But like you point out, how many of them stay open? That should be the real measure of success. Restaurants have the highest mortality rate of any business. Where I live, you see a new restaurant open, it gets all kinds of buzz, and 6 months later it's gone. Some locations literally have a new restaurant in them almost every year. I hadn't thought about John in terms of Anthony Bourdain, but that's a pretty good comparison. I enjoy some of Bourdain's shows, but I get bored with all the talk about his bad boy past. Yes, we get it. You did a lot of drugs. Do we need to hear that again and again and again? Similarly with John, I'm already bored by the repeated references to his bad reputation. Like when he said that a few years ago he would've knocked Katsuji on his ass. If you've really grown as person you don't constantly point it out. That's like trying to have it both ways.

If so, was that ever explained to the diners? I did hear someone on the team (Casey?) say that every diner was going to get every dish. If the diners were still doing individual orders, were they ordering multiple dishes because of the smaller portions? I'm still confused. It was like the Blue Team was overthinking and overcomplicating everything. Katsuji's slow clapping was so annoying I wondered for a second if John was going to forget that he's no longer "the old John" and charge him. That was certainly a test of his new found inner peace.

Katsuji said he picked John over Emily because he was a better, more experienced chef, but that was so obviously not going to turn out well. He might've had problems with Emily too, but it wouldn't have been two alpha dogs going at it. I was very confused by the Blue Team's "family style" concept, because to me that means putting everything out on large platters and then the diners serving themselves. But they had individual plates. And if everybody was supposed to get everything, as they said, why was there such confusion with the servers as to which tables got which dishes? On top of that, how can you call your restaurant "Southern Belle" and then not serve a southern meal? Tamales? Beef tongue? It was like the entire season up until now, with its focusing on Charlestown and southern food, hadn't happened. Worst Restaurant Wars team ever. Still, Brooke and Shirley snickering while the Blue Team was getting slammed by the judges wasn't nice. (Maybe it was editor's tricks). I missed Jim. He would've made a wonderful front-of-house. And/or cooked some kick ass true southern food.

It was a gripping match that I watched from beginning (that marathon first game) to end. Great hitting by both guys, incredible rallies. So much of tennis is mental, and often when you see a big underdog lose an early lead they become resigned and quietly go away. But big credit to Istomin, because even after the disappointment of almost winning the second set, and then being down two sets to one, he kept fighting. By the start of the fifth set, amazingly, he was the one playing with confidence. Late in the match, Djoko had the body language that said he didn't believe he could win. I saw Istomin play live a few years ago and was impressed by his talent. Maybe at 30 it's not too late for him to get it together and make some noise on the tour. An interesting phenomena of the past few years is guys playing their best tennis after they turn 30. Obviously Wawrinka, but others as well. Gilles Muller just won his first ATP tour and has his highest ranking ever at 33. I watched Djoko's post-match press conference, and I have to give him credit for the polite and patient way he answered a lot of really stupid questions. I used to think that he was an arrogant jerk, but I think he's grown up a lot in the past year or so. In other (non) news, John McEnroe is still an obnoxious know-it-all who never shuts up. His nonstop blabbing is a constant distraction when you're trying to watch a match, especially a great one like Djokovic-Istomin. With McEnroe it's never about the match being played. It's always about him. Not a Kyrgios fan, but I love how when a reporter asked him a question he said, "why don't you ask Johnny Mac? He knows everything."

I personally much prefer Fallen Angel to Laura, which has always seemed to me to be overrated, other than the memorable (and incessantly played) title song and the beauty of Gene Tierney. To me the whole brittle, upper crust New York milieu is overdone almost to the point of parody. In Angel I really like how the cynicism of Dana Andrew and the evil of the murder is juxtaposed against the sunny California small town atmosphere and the innocence of Alice Faye. Similar to what Hitchcock did in Shadow of a Doubt. I also prefer Where the Sidewalk End, another Preminger film noir starring Dana Andrews (again) and reuniting him with Gene Tierney. Andrews' police detective character is almost an extension of his character from Laura, though even more intense. Preminger does a great job blending a few exterior shots of New York City with mostly stage sets in managing to create a powerful urban atmosphere. For insomniacs, an interesting schedule late tonight on TCM. Two movies starring the comedy team of Wheeler and Woolsey, who were very popular in the '30s but now almost totally forgotten, and two 1930s dramas dealing with alcoholism. I'm interested in watching those, because we often hear that The Lost Weekend in 1945 was the first Hollywood movie to deal seriously with alcoholism. (Of course there's tons of drinking and drunkenness in early Hollywood movies, but it's generally played for laughs, like in Topper. No one would call George and Marion Kirby alcoholics, even though they're killed because George is driving drunk, which we presume he did all the time).

Norman Lloyd, who played the spy hanging from the Statue of Liberty in that scene, is still alive at 102, and has been interviewed by Robert Osborne on TCM. Hitchcock also used Cummings in Dial M for Murder, so he must've liked him. I agree that he's a light weight, which for me was even more of a problem in Dial M. Hard to figure out what Grace Kelly is supposed to see in him. But I actually do like Priscilla Lane, and thought she was pretty good in Saboteur. She also stars in one of my favorite somewhat unknown movies, Blues in the Night, an awkward but interesting mix of film noir, romantic drama and musical, with some amazing cinematography. It's shown on TCM from time to time.

No, the extent of the decline of the Democratic Party in 8 years is unprecedented for any party, and leaves the Dems in their weakest position since the Depression. From 257 House members down to 188, and from 60 senators down to 46. (48 if you count independents Sanders and King). On the state level it's even far worse. And in the next midterm election, the Democrats have far more seats at stake than the Republicans, so there's more danger ahead. Nobody can rightly blame Obama for all of this, but the DNC did abandon a 50 state strategy under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who Obama picked to hear the DNC over Howard Dean. (Despite Dean having done an excellent job). The handwriting was on the wall when the Dems started getting killed in midterm elections. Obama's reelection in 2008 somehow blinded many Dems to what was happening. I think that the Democratic Party has become a cult of personality. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were charismatic figures and great politicians. They thought that would continue with Hillary. But despite having a household name, and many long-time dedicated supporters, she famously has an inability to connect with people and inspire trust and confidence. Yes, three million more popular votes. But for better or worse, that's not how we decide elections. Just ask Al Gore. And even if she had won, she would've been dealing with a hostile Congress that would've extended the legislative gridlock of the past 6 years. So it really is time for the Democrats to do some serious strategizing about the future agenda of the party. Talk all you want about the Electoral College, The FBI, the Russians etc. The Dems just lost a national election to probably the worst candidate of any party ever to run for President. And got seriously beaten up and down the ticket in national, state, and local elections. I think pretending that it's "business as usual" after 8 years of having the presidency is not accurate. Or helpful.

I thought he did know that, combined with knowing the very negative response to his dish. Which makes his decision either more courageous or more stupid, depending on your point of view. I think you're right. Padma needed to shut up already about not getting a plate. It was like, how dare you do that to the Queen. I think she got under Jamie's skin. Instead of taking satisfaction in winning two QFs in a row, Jamie was put on the defensive, Yes, for sure it would be a more fair competition if scores were cumulative. Like in sports, where you have standings based on the season. If you'd be consistently putting out great dishes, one bad week might drop you from first to fourth in the standings, but you wouldn't be eliminated. However, from the point of TV drama, the idea of "one bad dish and you're gone," no matter what you did before, really ratchets up the suspense. Usually the people who survive by just barely not being the worst each week eventually go home. (like Jaimie with the curly blonde hair, can't remember her last name). Though arguably, Hosea and Kevin Sbraga did win despite being middle of the pack pretty much their whole seasons.

I don't think they should've allowed Jamie to give up immunity. So the rules of the show can be overturned by the contestants at will? That seems wrong. If I were to play amateur shrink I would say that Jamie's decision was tied in somehow to his gratitude about having overcome drug addiction to become a successful chef with a family he loves. It's like he's already a big winner. But that aside, I think he was being unfair to himself on two counts. Had he not had immunity, he wouldn't have been working with those ingredients and would have made a different dish. More importantly, he didn't win immunity in a lottery. He earned it. So why does his making "the worst dish" in the elimination challenge matter more than having made the best dish in the QF? Even if one cancels out the other, he still didn't deserve to go home over Emily, who was in the Sudden Death and had the next to worst dish in the elimination challenge. The judges should've taken all that into account, and since Jamie's dish was only marginally worse than Emily's (if at all), he should've stayed. But I guess she was kept for the drama, and so that they could make Jamie's giving up immunity have maximum impact.

The Usual Suspects is a movie composed almost entirely of "false flashbacks." I also really like Five Came Back. The prisoner/convict is played by character actor Joseph Calleia, and it's the only movie I can think of where he's a good guy. He had a long career playing gangsters and murderers. Maybe because he was born in Malta and was "foreign" looking. That was Hollywood back then. But in Five Came Back he shows that he was capable of doing much more. The movie has a great supporting great cast, including John Carradine, C. Aubrey Smith, and Allen Jenkins, and a young Lucille Ball, looking very lovely. The scene at the end between Smith and Elisabeth Risdon is so beautifully acted.

I'm a giant Hitchcock fan and I've always really liked Stage Fright. It may not be in the upper echelon of Hitch movies (ie. Vertigo, Shadow of a Doubt, Rear Window), but I enjoy it more than several that often make the "Hitchcock classic" lists. (Like Suspicion and Dial M for Murder, both of which I find stodgy and dull) . I believe that Stage Fright's bad reputation is due in large part to Hitchcock himself having frequently trashed it, most notably in the classic Truffaut book-length interview. I think it has a genuinely clever and twisty plot, deftly blends humor and suspense, and has marvelous performances by Marlena Dietrich and the inimitable Alistair Sim. I think that Jane Wyman is very good, and if I remember correctly, there may have been a line of dialogue about her having lived in America, to explain the lack of a bona fide English accent. In any event, that doesn't bother me. The moment when Michael Wilding turns Jane away to prevent her from seeing a gruesome sight (trying to avoid a spoiler) is one of the most genuinely tender moments in all Hitchcock. And for British TV comedy fans, note than the policeman in the scene with Marlena Dietrich is a young Ballard Berkeley, who many years later would play the dithering Major on Fawlty Towers.

This phenomena is why true tough political journalism is almost dead in this country, whether it's broadcast or print. The media largely identifies with the politicians they report on, and life is so good in big time journalism that they don't want to risk getting thrown off the gravy train by alienating anyone, or getting a reputation for being difficult. This has worked the detriment of the country, when during the Iraq War (and earlier, in the Vietnam War) we saw much of the media report, without question or investigation, official government versions of "the facts" that later were proven to be fabrications. What bugs me most about MSNC now, especially Rachel, is the soft ball questions and almost giddy fandom shown towards liberal Democratic politicians. I am a liberal-left Democrat myself, and I don't think that ultimately it helps our "cause" to pretend that everything is just peachy. Maybe MSNBC feels that since everything the Dems do is going to be blasted on Fox, they need to be the counterbalance. But I'm not interested in watching a network that is the liberal's version of Fox, with biased reporting and relentless cheerleading.

For that reason I do hope that the excess food gets consumed. I think that to some extent Tom C. has to segment his activism around hunger with his work on this show, because there are some obvious contradictions. At least it's not Master Chef, where Gordon Ramsey makes a big show of throwing food in the garbage.

Thanks for the reminder. I do remember that ridiculous incident. I'm glad the guy eventually got confirmed. (Unlike Obama's last Supreme Court nominee). The Surgeon General is involved with all issues that impact public health, so diet and nutrition is only one aspect of the job. Tom Colicchio is actually very involved politically with issues of food and hunger in America. He produced the powerful documentary, "A Place at the Table." Gay or straight or whatever, it's nice to have a kind, polite man competing on this show. Over the years there've been more than a few overbearing macho jerks. I hope Jim wins, but if not, I think being on this show should help him launch his own restaurant. A few years ago on a trip to Juneau, Alaska I had dinner with a friend of a friend who had been the official state chef of Alaska while Sarah Palin was governor. I'm sure she had stories, but I respected the fact that she politely declined to share any of them.

Yes, I caught that too. Rachel was all giddy about Greta asking some Republican Congressman what his source was for saying Isis was coming across the Texas border. Rachel's praise of Greta seemed excessive and weird. Now we know what it was about. One time calling out a Republican on obvious BS does not make up for years of spewing the Fox agenda. They will probably sell her as the voice of moderation and reason, but at Fox she was reasonable only compared to Sean Hannity. She was Carly Fiorina's campaign manager, and previously worked for Ted Cruz. Just another Republican shill. MSNBC gives way too much air time to these people, IMO.

I think the way they set that up they wanted you to think that and be surprised by the picture of his wife.

What pisses me off about Bill is his flip flopping. In the lead-up to the election he was calling Trump supporters "idiots" and "rednecks." When former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry said something about not stereotyping, and that there were good people who supported Trump, Bill got up on his high horse. "Really? No good person would support Trump," he definitely declared. The other panelists laughed and the audience clapped their approval. But after the election, with the media buzzing about how HRC lost because she failed to reach out to average Americans, there's Bill bashing the Democrats as coastal elitists who live in a bubble. As if he hadn't spent months ridiculing and mocking anyone who'd even consider voting for Trump. Along with many celebrity guests and panelists who got in on the act. (I remember Rob Reiner and John Legend as being particularly smug and condescending). It's always amusing to me how Bill and other mega-wealthy entertainers don't see themselves as part of the elite. The parade of show biz celebrity Hillary endorsers in the media, on talk shows, and in campaign appearances probably hurt her more than helped it. It made people feel that there was a party going on to which they weren't invited. (How inept were the Dems to allow a Republican billionaire to successfully portray himself as the candidate for working people?)

Teresa Wright and Joan Leslie are two actresses who for me have a very special quality of believability. They're both fine actresses who never do anything to call attention to the fact that they're acting. There's another quality about both of them I find hard to put into words. An inner glow, is the only (somewhat lame) way I can describe it. There's a look that Teresa Wright gives Dana Andrews in one scene in The Best Years of Our Lives that seems to be expressing admiration, concern, compassion, and love all at the same time. It's pretty remarkable.

"You live in a dream. You're a sleepwalker, blind. How do you know what the world is like? Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you rip off the fronts of houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?" That speech and the way Cotton delivers it never fails give to me chills, no matter how many times I've seen this great movie.

I've seen Hail a few times, but watching it again last week I was struck by how it mocks phony patriotism and hero worship while still paying tribute to the nobility of sacrificing oneself for a higher cause. The ability of Preston Sturges to be both satirical and sentimental at the same time is one of the facets of his genius as a writer. It's more subtle and interesting than the clear veering between humor and pathos that you see in many Capra movies. Sullivan's Travels is my favorite Sturges movie, with probably Palm Beach Story second. Palm Beach Story is a little less crazy and irreverent than some of the others, but it's a great romantic comedy. And it has that wonderfully silly ending. I also really like The Great McGinty, which I think is underrated. You rarely hear it mentioned as being among his best. The twist that a guy who had been crooked his whole life is undone by his one honest act is pure Sturges.

Sounds good to me, but I could just hear Tom saying, "This is Top Chef, and you make a red potato salad I could buy at any supermarket deli counter." Chefs often get criticized for not being innovative enough, but if you do something non-traditional it better taste good, or you'll really get slammed. That's what happened with Silvia. Years ago I sold my apartment to an Orthodox Jewish couple who kept Kosher. I'm Jewish but totally non-observant, and so they told me they would need to bring in a rabbi to "Kosher the oven," a process that involves using a blow torch. (I imagined the rabbi showing up dressed like one of the Ghostbusters. Except it would be "Kosherbusters.")

That may be the first time I can remember a 4 person team in which every single dish was a fail. There's almost always at least one dish out of the four that gets a good or at least passing grade. No suspense about the losing team. With all the dishes getting slammed, the judges could've sent any of them home. I agree with a previous poster that they were not sending Katsuji home if they had an alternative. However bad her "potato salad" was, I'd still rather eat that than beans cooked in pig's head sauce, including glands. Yuck. Sorry to see Silvia go. It's rare there's a Top Chef contestant from another country, and she seemed like a nice person. But I can't feel too badly for a woman who at 26 has two restaurants in Brooklyn and is about to open a third. Makes me think she hooked up with some wealthy backer. In any event, it certainly is an American success story.

Divorce American Style is a big favorite of mine. Many '60s satirical comedies don't hold up, but that one does. Very sharp writing and direction (the team of Norman Lear and Bud Yorkin, before they hit pay dirt in TV), and Debbie Reynolds and Dick Van Dyke are a terrific combo. (Probably his best movie role). And there's a great supporting cast including Jason Robards, Jean Simmons, Van Johnson, Lee Grant, Eileen Brennan etc. Debbie was also really good in What's the Matter with Helen (1971), another offbeat role for her.

She should've been nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for that one. As Carrie Fisher said in her TCM tribute to her mother, by how convincingly she played a role so completely different from her image she showed that she was a real actress, and not just a "star." Within a few moments of when she appears on screen you totally stop thinking of her as Debbie Reynolds. I really liked her as Albert Brooks' mother in Mother. It was a very genuine and touching performance. But I think she will always be best remembered for Singing in the Rain, and some of the lesser but still enjoyable musicals she made. I saw a fairly minor one on TCM recently, Give a Girl a Break. She was charming, and more than held her own dancing with Bob Fosse, as she had with Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor in Singing. What a talent!!