Saturday, May 25, 2019

In The Age Of The Marriage Made In Heaven-Maybe-Carol Lombard And James Stewart's “Made For Each Other” (1939)-A Film Review

In The Age Of The Marriage Made In Heaven-Maybe-Carol Lombard And James Stewart's “Made For Each Other” (1939)-A Film Review




DVD Review

Leslie Dumont

Made For Each Other, starring Carol Lombard, Jimmy Stewart, 1939

This film review of Made For Each Other is one of those “he said, she said” kind of movies. No, not in the way you think about some spat between two lovers, marriage partners or simple bedmates. Rather about how to approach this film, this old time melodrama a genre which got many a movie audience especially during World War II made up of waiting at home or working in the factory women through the tough nights and working days. Not that I have anything against old time melodramas which were the staple of date nights in college in the days when guys paid on the date and if short of money, a chronic problem, always suggested some such film at the second run and retro-theaters around campus. Moreover when I was working at this publication in the days when it came out in hard copy before I saw the writing on the wall about getting my own by-line Josh Breslin, who still works here and who then was my companion, let’s leave it at that, was forever taking me to such retro-theaters to watch some melodrama or other old time film he had been assigned to review.     

No, what has me in a “he said, she said” mood was something that old time film reviewer Sam Lowell told his now longtime companion and fellow writer here Laura Perkins to do when you hadn’t a clue about how to go about “the hook” which every movie review rests on. Sam said when all else fails on an oldie you can always check out the “slice of life” edge and get the job done. That, in any case, is what Laura told me when I asked her what the hell to do with this tear-jerker which you however know deep in your bones is going to work out right in the end. Has to work out right because remember those waiting at home or working in the factories women who needed a boost to get them through those hard nights and boredom days.

While this film is not the worse you could ever find for the slice of mid-20th century married life movie that it represents it is still hard for me to pick out some points that will enlighten the reader about those times. Here is the play though. John, an up and coming Mayfair swell bred young lawyer in New York City, played by Jimmy Stewart, meets Jane (hey I didn’t make up the character names but John and Jane in a now age of Trevor and Regan do signify a different sensibility), played by Carol Lombard, a young women of unknown means, on a business trip for an important case his big-time Yankee New York law firm is handling. Both smitten they immediately marry on the fly something more likely to happen once the World War comes America’s way a few years later.

This may be, and as already signaled will turn out to be, a marriage made in heaven but the road is long and bumpy. First off John’s high and mighty mother, an endlessly carping type that I was all too familiar with both with my own mother growing up and with my first husband’s mother so I could certainly sympathize with that dilemma, disapproves of his marriage choice preferring the boss’ daughter for her charge and then, a widow, moves in with the young marrieds and drives Jane crazy (that mother moving in different these days when the kids are moving in or staying in the parental home what with rents and housing prices out of reach for many these days). Worse, hard-working steady at the wheel Johnny boy winds up getting passed over for a partnership-the kiss of death in most law firms and time to move on although he does not do so even when Jane steels him to ask for a raise so they can get a little house and put dead-weight mother in the attic or something.         

If all that wasn’t enough John and Jane have a child who before he is a few years old winds up catching pneumonia and things look like he is a goner much to the distress of his loving parents. Nowadays getting the right medicines for childhood illnesses is no big deal but then whatever serums were around were sparse and expensive (as some drugs are today as well). Johnny up against it begs his niggardly boss to give him an advance or loan to get the drugs necessary which have to come all the way from Salt Lake City. So here is where the nail-biter part comes in-the part about getting the drugs to New York from there in a blizzard. Getting through the blizzard in an open cockpit plane for crying out loud. In the end though the child is saved, Johnny gets a raise and due to Jane’s stoic presence during the crisis gains Johnny’s mother’s respect. That will do it.

Ennui In The Fading Empire-The Film Adaptation Of Elizabeth Von Armin’s “The Enchanting April” (1992)-A Review

Ennui In The Fading Empire-The Film Adaptation Of Elizabeth Von Armin’s “The Enchanting April” (1992)-A Review





DVD Review

By Leslie Dumont


Enchanting April, starring Josie Lawrence, Miranda Richardson, Polly Walker, Joan Plowright, from the novel by Elizabeth von Armin, 1992

Somebody could have made some serious money in an office pool here betting on whether I would be assigned this “women’s movie” (I refuse to say “chick flick”) Enchanting April from the BBC based on Elizabeth von Armin’s novel. Apparently I am these days the “go-to” gal for anything that looks like it will be a romantic theme and with a happy ending. I will hold my fire on this issue for a bit since for a while I was getting juicy reviews to do. But recently it seems that the “good old boys” network has taken up all the good stuff. The good old boys including my long ago companion Josh Breslin who should know better since he both encouraged me to take a by-line at Women Today many years ago when it looked like I would always be a stringer here and recently asking me to come on board with the new management bringing in new ideas.   

But enough of the internal workings in the Internet publishing business and get to the story, not a bad story until near the end when that happy ending business falls from the sky. There was plenty to be sad about in post-World War I England in the 1920s after the blood bath of the war had taken the flower of young faltering British Empire manhood to the white cross graves in places like Flanders fields. Plenty as well to be sad about as well when the eternally rainy and foggy London weather could dampen even the blithest spirts. And plenty to be sad about when you are a woman (or a man but women are the punished here) in an unhappy marriage. Those three ideas come together in this film when two unhappy middle class women have seen the same ad in a newspaper for a castle to rent on the Italian coast for a month, the month of April.

Unhappily married Lottie, played by Josie Lawrence, convinces unhappily married Madonna-like Rose, played by Miranda Richardson, to pursue the idea and they eventually go for the brass ring. Having some financial problems swinging the expenses with just two they grab elderly and frail Mrs. Fisher, played by Joan Plowright, and the beautiful Lady Caroline, played by Polly Walker, to share expenses. The latter two also unhappy the former with growing old and alone and the latter having had it as the prime sex object of her set.

The play amongst the four very different personalities with very different desires gets mellowed in the enchanted April Italian sun amongst the flowers and sea breezes. Part of that mellowing process at least from Lottie is that she finally realizes that she is incomplete without her penny-pinching husband. So she invites him to come and stay with her. Guess what the Mediterranean mellows him out. Number one problem solved. Lottie gets Rose to write her husband to come visit as well and she does not expecting to see her tawdry novelist husband to show up but he does and the Italian sea air softens him too. Number two problem solved. That magical sea air also softens the sickly Mrs. Fisher who after the month gives up her walking cane. Problem number three solved. Finally the angst-filled Lady Caroline takes up with the gentile man who rented them the place after he was on the rebound from an unsuccessful courting of Rose. Problem number four solved. That by the numbers at the end when they all leave the castle together is where the whole thing breaks down in my mind given the troubles of the cast of characters. I would like my own problem solved by not having to be put upon to do these improbable women’s films.      

Friday, May 24, 2019

The Best Interest Of The Child-Pierce Brosnan’s “Evelyn” (2002)-A Film Review

The Best Interest Of The Child-Pierce Brosnan’s “Evelyn” (2002)-A Film Review




DVD Review

By Special Guest Reviewer Frankie Riley

Evelyn, Pierce Brosnan, Aidan Quinn, 2002  


Christ, I haven’t written a film review in so long, hell, any non-legal writing that I have almost forgot the talent existed in any form. You might as well know right now that I have been dragooned into do this review of Evelyn  by Greg Green the site manager here via the machinations of one Sam Lowell who I grew up with in the old Irish Catholic-dominated poor Acre neighborhood of North Adamsville south of Boston. The dragooned part comes in from the bright idea that Sam, who before his merciful retirement used to be the film editor here (and in the old days at American Film Gazette which is where Greg came from as well speaking of nepotism), that this film needed the gentile hand of a lawyer to work out. Of course Sam, Greg, and the whole non-lawyerly universe does not realize that being a lawyer in America does not give one some “cred” when speaking of foreign, in this case Irish Republican, read Holy Mother Church-etched law even though all derives from the bloody Mother English common law.

I might as well get to the dilemma here, the legal dilemma since it essentially is an early case of “the best interest of the child,” a legal doctrine that is followed in many places in place of the old standard that     
the state should take hands off except in extremis in the matter of the welfare of children in the care of their loving parents. Wish that sentiment were truer than to say it is so. Society have come a long way on that score and still have a long way to go but this film gives a small brush of what the stakes were ( an unintended pun since the main character, main adult character is a painter as they used to say by trade). Of course when you speak of Ireland in the old days, the post-independence from bloody Mother England days when the boyos, including a few of my grand uncles and cousins of advanced degree gave His Majesty all that he could handle and then some and then caved in to the damn clergy and dear Most Apostolic Mother Church , so you know where I am coming from days. Unlike today when the Catholic Church has lost some of it relentless grip on the population (witness the vote on same-sex couples tying the knot and the forthcoming close election on abortion rights which really will break the strangle hold if successful) half the damn Irish Constitution had the Church’s position on all aspects of social life embedded in it. While watching this film I kept returning to a feeling that I am blessed to be living in a secular republic whatever inroads that the religiously-oriented crowd running amok and their secular allies in America have made in my now long life time.

The crux of the legal matter here, ultimately the constitutional question, was whether an article of that blessed document concerned the fate of the children in family when one spouse deserts the family and the other is left holding the bag and is at the mercy of the state. The procedure before anything else in other words. The provision contested concerned wording that in order for the children to stay with one parent, here the father, that un-punned painterly father, the other spouse wherever he or she is must give consent. Weird. Weirder still was that as a result of this 1941 law many, many Irish children with one non-deceased spouse were thrown to the wolves of the Catholic Church run orphanages. It is only the past few years, maybe a decade now that the ugly truth of what happened physically, sexually and emotionally in those hell-holes has come to light. Some people, religious and secular, are going to roast in hell for a long time over their heinous actions against their charges.      

The storyline here, what Sam always called the skinny, centers on the family of one Desmond Doyle who will be the driving force behind the struggle to get his children back. His wife left him for parts unknown with another man, worse, worse in Ireland and in the Acre neighborhood too with a bloody Englishman, meaning that she was not findable in order to give her consent. This left Desmond, played by Irishman Pierce Brosnan last seen in this space according to Sam playing the epitome of English bravado as 007, you know James Bond in one of those endless sagas about how a single resourceful MI6 agent can keep the empire from falling to ground, with no recourse one a lower court determined that his personal and employment life were not good enough to keep the state from getting its grubby hands on the sweet children and turning them over to the hands of legerous priests and witchy, bitchy nuns who had no problem not sparing the rod on the child.

But Desmond seriously loves the little ones, loves his little princess Evelyn above all at least the time she is given in the film to develop a winsome character against the time given to her two younger brothers who seem to be able to blow with the winds. So, with the help of a good woman, speaking about winsome, a winsome woman, he gets two parts of his life back in order. He give up “the drink” as they used to say at his pub and at the old Dublin Grille in the Acre when somebody went on the wagon (my father for one although he battled the bottle all of his life, at least all of the life I knew of him before he ran off with some “shawlie” but that was when I was an adult and had my own marital problems). The winsome lass also puts him in touch with her brother, a solicitor, who in turn brings in a barrister who is the one who can actually try the case (and who as a sidebar is also smitten by that winsome lass and no one could blame him). This is where the Promethean uphill battle gets joined to try to get some freaking court to overturn the lower court judgment and let Desmond have his little ones back.

I would have to say in the 1950s when this legal case moved forward I would have bet against victory given the strong role of the Church on governmental officials and that lucrative slave labor orphanage racket (and the other part as well with slave labor unwed mothers to speak nothing of the pedophilia crimes -Jesus, yes the fires of hell will burn brightly for many a night when that crowd, state and church gets it comeuppance). But several things happened that helped the case along, a case which depended on angel rays in the end (which is also a title of one of the songs on the soundtrack). One was getting a solid law professor as an advisor who helped get publicity for Desmond’s case. Best of all (and I don’t know how this actually played out in the real case) Evelyn who deserved her title of the film honor blew the court away with her pleading honest child-like testimony. Case closed.              

To 'Nurture Human Lives Rather Than Take Them Away,' 2020 Democrats Urged to Support Slashing Annual Pentagon Budget By $200 Billion "It is long past time to eliminate excess Pentagon spending and invest the savings in urgent domestic and human needs."

To 'Nurture Human Lives Rather Than Take Them Away,' 2020 Democrats Urged to Support Slashing Annual Pentagon Budget By $200 Billion

"It is long past time to eliminate excess Pentagon spending and invest the savings in urgent domestic and human needs."
Demonstrators carry signs during an anti-war protest after President Donald Trump launched airstrikes in Syria, April 15, 2018 in New York City. (Photo"Kena Betancur/Getty Images)
In an effort to rein in the bloated military-industrial complex and free up funds for "programs that nurture human lives rather than take them away," a coalition of nearly two dozen progressive advocacy groups on Thursday launched a campaign urging 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to support cutting the Pentagon budget by at least $200 billion per year.
"The left is done paying for warmongers to squander human life and resources, and we will not support candidates who fail to pledge to reverse this horrific course." 
—Sean Vitka, Demand Progress
Over the next decade, the "People Over Pentagon" agenda would make at least $2 trillion in spending available for essential domestic needs and ambitious programs like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, said the coalition, which includes Win Without War, Public Citizen, 350.org, and other grassroots organizations.
"I've always found it remarkable that when it comes to war, fighter jets, and bombs, most politicians never ask how we'll pay for it, but when it comes to progressive policies like Medicare for All, some members of Congress pretend we can't afford to foot the bill," Heidi Hess, co-director of CREDO Action, said in a statement.
The current Pentagon budget—which was approved on a bipartisan basis last June—is $716 billion. As Common Dreams reported in March, the Democratic leadership is attempting to cut a deal with Trump to hike military spending to $733 billion—slightly less than the $750 billion President Donald Trump demanded in his 2020 budget request.
"Democrats, for good reason, vehemently oppose almost everything Trump proposes, but when he asks for a huge increase in military spending, there are almost no voices in dissent," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a 2020 presidential candidate who voted against the 2019 Pentagon budget, wrote for In These Times earlier this year.
Presidential hopefuls Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also voted against the 2019 military budget.
The People Over Pentagon coalition is urging 2020 Democrats to not just oppose increases in war spending, but to call for significant cuts.
"America needs leaders who will speak plain truths about Pentagon excesses and waste," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. "Presidential candidates should show leadership by talking about deep cuts in Pentagon spending and how the savings could be used for other pressing purposes. Our coalition aims to make reallocation of Pentagon spending an issue in the presidential campaign."
On Thursday, the coalition sent letters to all 26 Democratic presidential hopefuls, urging them to commit to the following three goals:
  • Pentagon spending should be reduced by at least $200 billion annually, freeing up $2 trillion or more over the next decade for domestic and human needs priorities;
  • The United States should never again go to war without congressional authorization, and Congress should not authorize military action without identifying revenue to pay for current and future costs, including taking care of injured veterans;
  • By adhering to our values and promoting international cooperation, we can prevent war, address the underlying causes of conflict and meet humanitarian imperatives.
"Pentagon spending has spiraled out of control," the letters read. "It is long past time to eliminate excess Pentagon spending and invest the savings in urgent domestic and human needs priorities—environmental protection, education, infrastructure, healthcare, and more—that will make the United States stronger and more just."
The coalition suggested more than 20 ways the Pentagon budget can be cut by $200 billion each year "without undermining national security or capabilities." The list of options included:
  • Defer or cancel development of the B-21 Bomber—save $3 billion;
  • Reduce U.S. presence in Afghanistan by half—save $23.15 billion;
  • Reduce active troop presence in Europe to 40,000—save $1.5 billion;
  • Cancel the Long-Range Standoff Weapon—save $1.4 billion.
"Spending more than half of discretionary taxpayer dollars on the Pentagon fails to make America safer at the cost of other vital needs like job creation, healthcare, and solving climate chaos," said Paul Kawika Martin, senior director of policy and political affairs at Peace Action. "At the same time, the U.S. short shrifts funding for diplomacy, development and other tools that prevent wars in the first place. We need bold leadership to break the hold of what President Eisenhower deemed 'the military-industrial complex.'"
The new campaign to shift funds from the American war machine to domestic programs and international diplomatic efforts comes as the Trump administration continues to escalate tensions with Iran, heightening the chances of yet another devastating war of choice in the Middle East.
According to the Associated Press, the Pentagon on Thursday plans to present the White House with a strategy that would send 10,000 more American troops to the Middle East to defend against unsubstantiated "Iranian threats."
Sean Vitka, counsel at Demand Progress, said in a statement that 2020 Democratic presidential candidates "must reject Donald Trump's continued march toward militarism and the decades of unnecessary wars that precede and continue under him."
"The progressive policy on wars of choice is clear: the left is done paying for warmongers to squander human life and resources," said Vitka, "and we will not support candidates who fail to pledge to reverse this horrific course."

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place.But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Won't Exist.
Please select a donation method:




Share This Article