Roman Holiday (1953)

Why it's here:
In order to see Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn, both new to our festival with this movie.

Specs:
2 hours, black and white

Our family's average rating:
8.88! Making it our second highest rated film so far! Just behind It Happened One Night.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We loved this film, which in so many ways is just simply flawless. It is a simple enough love story -- a fish out of water theme of a pampered young princess who longs to be unencumbered out in the world. She gets her wish, for a day, anyway. With an amazing escort like Gregory Peck, its a wonder she didn't run off forever.

I don't want to give too much of the plot away because I really want you to see this film. Trust me that the story, though simple, is executed perfectly, lightly, effortlessly and beautifully. It is charming in almost every way (including the dialog, action, humor, pacing and even the bittersweet ending.)

It is perfectly cast with Audrey Hepburn in the role that made her a star and Gregory Peck as a journalist who stumbles upon the princess (or rather, is stumbled upon by her) and makes an exciting, likable, understandable man who at first means to capitalize on his find, but ultimately makes a very different choice. Eddie Albert as the beatnik sidekick adds so much comic counterpoint and balances out any chance that the film be too sappy or sentimental.

The filming choices (on location in Rome and black and white rather than color) are inspired. At a time when it was highly unusual to film on location in another country, the fact the almost every shot is quite spectacularly Rome – adds so much depth and timelessness to this story. As to the choice of black and white, which seemed somewhat surprising given the gorgeous scenery and high-end feel of spectacle about the film, I've heard two explanations: (1) That because the filmmakers insisted on the Rome location, to compensate for the extra cost they went with a cheap unknown actress and B&W cinematography; or that (2) B&W was intentional so that the backgrounds and beauty of the city didn’t overshadow the story and its characters.  I don't know which, if either of these explanations, is accurate, but am just glad they did it.  Because going against the obvious with black and white added a layer of seriousness about the project. It told me right off the bat, this was not going to be just light visual fluff; that something better was going to be going on.

We highly recommend this film.

Iconic shot:

Limelight (1952)

Why its here:
Kismet. A few days ago, I learned that this was Chaplin's last American/major film and the only one in which he worked with Buster Keaton. As luck would have it, we happened to be watching films from 1952 just as I made that discovery, so we decided to add it!

Specs
Just over 2 hours; black and white. We had trouble finding this one. It was not available for rental on Amazon or iTunes and (unusually) our library did not have it. We watched on Youtube in a very low quality version.
Set in 1914-1917

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Just a note about the version we watched -- We had to resort to Youtube and unfortunately what I could find was pretty low resolution. Worse still, it was divided into 9 segments, so we had to keep loading and clicking to see it all. Then there's even more bad news: the first segment of the 9 had been removed from Youtube! So, we filled in the first 10 minutes or so with another version that had the dialog overdubbed in Russian, which, I got to tell you, was an odd thing indeed.

Even with these strikes against our viewing experience, we still found the film to be riveting. It grew on us the more we watched, as we became more comfortable with the style of story being told .... which, though Chaplin, is not comedic. An aging, washed-up clown who saves the life of a young very depressed ballet dancer creates a poignant, sometimes humorous, and mostly philosophical drama -- and an excellent one at that.

Chaplin and Clair Bloom were perfect in the lead roles. And the great bulk of the film relies on their skill. I've heard criticism that Bloom overacts in the part of the dancer. While there were a few moments that felt overdone, these seemed to me to be by director's choice to highlight her struggle and not ill-suited to this melodramatic person/story. Her acting suited the character and their relationship (as scared and scarred people who become pillars for each other) suited the film.

I really want to watch (and listen) again in some version of quality in order to take notes on the dialog. Especially in the beginning when Chaplin's character Calvero was giving life advice to Bloom's Thereza. There are spectacularly philosophical bits of advice that would make great sound bites -- worthy of greeting cards, and facebook, and whatnot : )  Calvero is a top-notch friend with an incredible ability to be helpful but not cloying, overdone, or self-important. It is no wonder that Thereza falls in love with him.

And, on that topic, for once, a Hollywood May-December romance is handled well. Probably 40 years separate these two in age, but the implications of this age difference are not ignored. They form a central tenant of the film. The nuanced and difficult relationship makes perfect sense, and the film explores the core meaning of what it is to love and to care and to be grateful. ... And where  all of that fits into the notion of romantic love. It is a beautiful theme and really well-handled.

I mentioned Keaton as part of the reason we watched, but his role here is very small. Still, it is the highlight of the film to see Keaton and Chaplin together - still very funny, still silent geniuses. The act they do together is almost entirely without words and is wonderful.

A side note on the time period. we were thrilled to see a movie set in this time that actually felt like the proper era. (Compared to Easter Parade and even Singin' in the Rain, this felt very authentic as a period piece). The apartment, the landlady, the cars, the theater, the relationships, the food -- everything -- seemed spot on. Which makes sense given that between 1914 and 1917 Chaplin was making films with backdrops such as these and clearly knew whats what.

The film is of further interest for the backstory regarding Chaplin. We've been talking with the kids about the Hollywood red scare and blacklisting that arose in response to our nation's fervor to rid the country of Communist influences. A sad and disturbing chapter in the festival is the way the film industry was subjected to the heavy hand of politics, via the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, as the spectacle of the cold war reared in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Some were blacklisted, and many frightened and/or silenced. Those with liberal-leaning views (regardless of whether they were actually communist), were affected. Chaplin became persona non grata at the time of this film. Although some say Chaplin was "deported", in fact, it seems that when he left the country to promote his film abroad, his reentry visa was denied -- amounting to much the same thing. In any case, Chaplin did not return to the States until many years later, in the mid 1970s, when he accepted a lifetime acheivement Oscar.

Iconic shot:

High Noon (1952)

Why it's here:
Lets see: Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, classic Western. Yep. That's plenty of reason.

Specs:
About an hour and a half, black and white. We watched on dvd
I'm not sure they ever make clear what the year is, but it's probably in the late 1800s

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
7.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film is not your typical Western. It is slow, thoughtful, introspective and psychological. For me, it seemed to follow the legacy of "Stagecoach" in that the whole film is tense on nothing more than the theory of waiting for something you know is going to happen. This film takes that drama to whole new planes. It is beautifully filmed. The camera seems to know just how to milk every shot for silence, tension, calm and stress. The basic selling point of the film is character. Who behaves how and why? And because the film is so well done, this is enough to make riveting cinema. The theme song "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darlin'" playing throughout the film, adds a haunting and emotional touch. Just thinking of the song now, evokes all the emotional tensions of this movie.

My husband was frustrated with it seeming to be a movie full of cliches. But the funny thing is, many of the cliche's were probably created by this movie itself. It is so iconic, so well-known, whether you know it or not. My son asked whether the whole idea of "the showdown at noon" preceded or followed this film? I truly have no idea.

The film is remarkable not just for the unusual slow and psychological approach but for the incredible female roles. Grace Kelly is so much more than eye candy. She is the moral center -- a Quaker who is absolutely opposed to violence. She makes several hard choices based on her own conscience and character. More amazing still, an Hispanic woman of strength and character, (a respected business woman no less) is played by a Mexican actress (Helen Ramirez) in a powerful performance. This just blows me away.

Beyond the movie's plot, you can also enjoy the film as allegory for what was going on in Hollywood at this time (blacklisting/Red scare politics). The issues of character -- of standing up and doing the right thing can be a great jumping off point for a chance to learn about these dark times in Hollywood.

All politics aside, we've now enjoyed seeing Gary Cooper at several stages in his career: as a very young actor in "Wings"; as a man at the height of his powers in "The Pride of the Yankees" and, here, as a mature man. Always an incredible screen presence.

Iconic shot:

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Why it's here:
I've been so excited to get to this film! First, I'd never even seen it myself and, second, it would be a perfect re-cap to our experience with the transition from silent to sound. This film consistently ranks at the very top of "all time best films" lists.

Specs:

Just over an hour and a half, color.
Set during the transition from silents to sound films, around 1927

Our family's average rating:
7.88

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This film started out as pure perfection. As a perfect spoof of the silent era, filmed in a kindhearted, self-aware way, this movie hits the mark and is just golden. We knew enough of the silent era and the transition to talkies to give us great thrill of enjoyment when the film explored those themes. We delighted in the silly silent-film director and the over-the-top stars and parties. Any details that didn't ring quite true (and there were a few) were easy to forgive.

Had the film been able to stay in the mode it started in and be consistent throughout, it would have earned a '10' from me and maybe a notch or two higher from the rest of my family, but it didn't. It trailed off. It meandered into long dancy dream sequence territory that became self-important and started to fall for its own plot.

Nevertheless. It is still an amazing film.

I was expecting great things from Gene Kelly, but the true delight for us was Donald O'Connor who we didn't know. He was amazing - funny and a a talented dancer. His routine "Make Em Laugh" was a definite highlight for us all, as was the incredible "Moses Supposes". I guess it goes without saying that the song numbers are insanely good. I haven't even addressed the title number yet, which is priceless and, if anything, too short. We could have watched Gene Kelly dance forever. Debbie Reynolds (who, I got to tell the boys, is Princess Leia's mother) was also wonderful. Although Gene Kelly himself was apparently critical of her dancing skill, we found her to be a terrific addition to the cast.  Kelly may have been a bit of a tyrant, because, she supposedly said later that "making this movie and giving birth" were the two most difficult things she'd ever done! We're glad she did both.

Iconic shot:

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Why it's here:
Really wanted to include some science fiction. This story of an alien spaceship come down to earth to warn us to change our violent ways is a classic.

Specs:
An hour and a half, black and white.

Our family's average rating:
6.83

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is a classic film and still a favorite among modern sci-fi fans. It is not a "B-movie"; it certainly had high end production values for its time as well as top notch talent. We are not huge fans of the sci-fi genre, but found a great deal to appreciate in this otherworldly tale.

It is an impressive film. And what makes it so is not the story, or even its technical feats, but its ability to use film as a storytelling medium. I guess that's an awkward complement, but I just mean that the film feels complete. The story unfolds at the right pace and in the right way. The music underscores the experience; as does the lighting and interesting shot compositions. The acting is excellent -- especially Patricia Neal as the concerned earthling mom and Michael Rennie as the lead alien. They manage to convey relevance and importance in the story, even though the overall affect will seem cheesy to modern folk.

Obviously, you have to suspend your more critical, scientific judgments in order to get the most out of an alien film from the 1950s. This one is steeped in the fears of its time and makes for interesting conversation on the cold war, the UN, and the atomic bomb.

Unfortunately, we watched the film while travelling and ended up seeing it in bits and pieces on three different evenings. This probably lead to it feeling more choppy and less impressive than it might otherwise have.

Iconic shot:

African Queen (1951)

Why it's here:
We knew Katherine Hepburn and Humphrey Bogart separately (and younger) from other films and were anxious to see them together in this highly acclaimed one.

Specs:
1 hour and 45 minutes; color. We watched on dvd from the library
Set in 1914

Our family's average rating:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This movie is amazing. And so unexpected. I mean, of course, I'd heard of it and figured it had to be good, but it's not the type of film that succeeds in the way you are expecting it to. You really just don't see it sneaking up on you until you are already deep within its grasp.

So, the film starts out with a middle-aged missionary and his sister (Katherine Hepburn) in Africa -- then enters an ugly, disheveled Humphrey Bogart looking worse than you can imagine. The missionary dies (not really a spoiler since it happens right away in the film) and Hepburn and Bogart are left travelling together for the rest of the film. Getting to know each other as they float down a river may not sound like compelling film making. But it is so stunningly well made and well acted that it's all that is needed to carry the film.

We were all impressed. And that is really saying something when a teenage and preteen boy 50 years later can watch what is basically as much a romance between two middle-aged people as it is an adventure film, and LOVE it. Their story is so believably done that it still engages. But, when I stopped to think about it, our whole family taking to this movie makes total sense because it is much like It Happened One Night. It's a simple, well-written, well-acted, believable, fantasy adventure between two people and the countryside.

Iconic image:

Fuller Brush Girl (1950)

Why it's here:
Although we know Lucille Ball is primarily a TV star, we also knew that she had been a movie actress before she hit it big on TV. Although none of her films are particularly well known, I really wanted to include something from Lucy in the festival and thought this one sounded good.

Specs:
Not quite an hour and a half, black and white.
Might be available on dvd somewhere, but we couldn't locate a copy. We were glad that Amazon instant video had it available. It was worth the $2.99 rental.

Our family's average rating:
7.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The Fuller Brush Girl is a movie where Lucille Ball plays a woman who wants to work for the Fuller Brush Company, selling makeup door to door. I hadn't done much research on the film but picked it because it had Lucy in 1950, right on the threshold of her big TV career. So... I was expecting... I don't know, some light silly mediocre comedy about Lucy selling items door to door.  In fact, this was a murder mystery/comedy that was much better than and also very different from what I'd expected.

The film also stars Eddie Albert, who, like Lucy, was also more famous for his TV career (notably Green Acres) than his film career. But both made suitable film stars. They were funny and fearless and had a nice chemistry as an engaged couple that stumbles into their employer's illegal activity.

I really enjoyed this pre-I-Love-Lucy version of Ball. She is just as funny and there's a lot less whiney crying. She does a great deal of physical comedy that is really funny. The plot is interesting, not fantastic, and does a great job of giving us opportunities to enjoy Lucy's talent.

Content warnings:
Parents should note that there are some questionable scenes involving a burlesque show. Luckily, the dancing is not too bawdy and the idea of this type of performance will probably go over kids' heads. Lucy does a suggestive, but very funny, dance routine where she appears in just a slip. The whole scene is played for laughs and not for sensuality. Lucy also wears what would be considered a very short skirt for 1950) throughout the last part of the film and performs many stunts in it that reveal a great deal of leg (for 1950). (I also just gotta say this here, Lucy has fabulous legs!) A final content caution would be about the murder/crime part. Although this movie is played for laughs, there's no question that there are darker themes of shady crime and gang activity that ends with two characters being shot. (The murders are not shown, but the bodies are). And there are some tense, scary moments when our heros are evading bad guys who would like to kill them. By modern standards this stuff is tame, but worth mentioning.

Other than those parent cautions (which you'll have to decide on how troublesome for your family), this was an awesome film that we'd highly recommend.

Iconic shot:

All About Eve (1950)

Why it's here:
I couldn't let us go through this festival and not see Bette Davis. Problem is, I had a hard time picking from among her films; none of them really seemed to suit us and we were getting to the end of her era. All About Eve, a highly acclaimed film, seemed a good choice.

Specs:
Over two hours, black and white. Available in a beautifully restored version on dvd.

Our family's average rating on a scale from 1-10:
7.17

More about the film and our reaction to it: 
Bette Davis plays Margo, a middle-aged stage actress who is part talent, part arrogance, and part good hearted woman in an exceptional performance. Anne Baxter is also wonderful as the young ingenue, Eve, who apparently idolizes Margo and spends the film alternately winning over then alienating various people in Margo's life. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent; we especially liked George Sanders as the film critic who is ultimately in control. And I was totally stunned when Marilyn Monroe walked into the frame part way through. I had not realized she was in the picture, as she was still an unknown bit-player. But there is no mistaking Monroe and she was wonderful in a small role as a air-headed actress who is nonetheless sharp about her career

The great acting and fascinating story idea make this a top notch piece of filmmaking.

Because my younger son and I had just seen Sunset Blvd., we kept noticing the many parallels between the two films. Although we both enjoyed this film and appreciated the acting, we also both agreed that Gloria Swanson's was the better performance and Sunset Blvd. the better film.

However, while watching, we had the unfortunate logistical problem that we were on the laptop while riding in a car, and we could not hear the dialog very well. The dvd was already overdue at the library and we were on the last day of our grace period! We had to watch, and we had to watch NOW, so we sucked it up. ... maybe the film was better than we realized.

Overall, although the film is certainly well-made, we doubt it would be the best choice for most families, as the themes are troubling and of more grown-up interest.

Iconic image:

Broken Arrow (1950)

Why it's here:
For the simple reason that it was filmed at Old Tucson.

Specs:
1 and 1/2 hours. Color! We watched on a dvd from our local library
Set in the 1870s

Our family's average rating:
7.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I didn't know much about the film when I chose it for the festival, but when I picked up the dvd from the library and read the back, I was amazed to see that the story sounded just like Dances with Wolves -- Later, when I read the back of the case to my kids, my older son said: "that sounds just like Avatar." It turns out that we were both somewhat correct, and it certainly could have been an inspiration for both movies.

Jimmy Stewart, as always, gives a great performance -- this time as a disenfranchised Union soldier, Tom Jeffords, who stumbles upon a tribe of Apache Indians, is tasked by his government with convincing them to allow the U.S. mail to go through their territory unmolested, and who ultimately finds beauty in their lifestyle, makes enduring trust-based friendships, falls in love with and marries a native woman, and endures tragedy due to the clash of cultures and advancing white men.  Sound like DWW? Yes. But, unlike the latter, Stewart's character stays connected to the white people in Tucson throughout the film and does not completely leave "his kind." According to my sons this is also pretty much the same story you find in Avatar with a few key plot differences, such as the two cultures aren't already at war when our hero joins them and their is no element of attempted peace treaty. The themes are good ones, so no wonder the movie gets made over and again.

To watch a film like this is a bit of a test for a modern viewer. I found it troublesome and distracting that the lead Apache characters were played by actors who were clearly not natives. In the case of the character Cochise, Jeff Chandler was at least very capable and quite convincing as an Apache chief. However, the leading "lady" (and I have to put that in quotes because Debra Paget was a girl - just 16 when the film was made) was woefully inadequate in acting skill and in "look" to manage the task of compelling love interest/Indian maiden. I don't know if orange spray tan had been invented in 1950, but that seemed to be the approach to make this clearly Anglo girl an "Indian." How sad that this ever seemed acceptable. Some of the Apaches in the background scenes did appear to be Native actors, and the character Geronimo, though a very small part, was played by Jay Silverheels. The lack of Native actors in key parts is troublesome, but not as much as the attempt at the optimistic tone the film seems bent on sharing. It is hard to see this film strive for a positive if not happy ending, when we know that there is no Chiricahua Apache land preserve anywhere near us in southern Arizona and no chance that the Americans kept their word to keep the peace and stay out of Apache lands.


Still, one has to appreciate that this film boldly portrayed the Apaches as sympathetic and honorable people. An unusual touch for 1950.

Probably the film's biggest failure was with it's strained love story. Debra Paget is an unbearably and inappropriately young love interest for Jimmy Stewart. We've seen plenty of May-December romances in Hollywood films of this era, think Judy Garland/Fred Astair. But in Easter Parade, Garland was at least a fully grown woman of 26 choosing a much older man after a long build up that made it clear why she liked him. Paget's character here is given no such build-up, no motivations, and no reason why she would fall for Stewart's.  Paget is a teenager. She seemed hardly able to manage to kiss him, and even Stewart seemed only slightly less troubled by the match-up. They were horribly unsuited. I wished heartily that the film makers had not tried to make this a love story!

Interestingly enough, in researching the movie, we learned that much of the story is true. Tom Jeffords was a real person who did become close friends with Cochise and much of the plot based on that friendship seems accurate or at least based on real events. (However, not surprisingly, the romance was entirely made up. Jeffords never married an Indian woman.)

One final note: It was wonderful but strange to see a Technicolor Western, especially one filmed around Tucson. However, it almost seemed wrong to see this story in color, as Westerns just seem like they should be black and white.

Iconic shot:

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Why it's here:
Technically, it's not. I had no intention of including this film. I watched because, how could I not after all the film experiences of the last few months? I knew it to be far too dark and unsettling for our family, and my husband wasn't interested in it, so I watched alone. Fortuitously, I discovered it on Netflix just as our family got to the end of the 1940s, so I watched it right in date order.  But I was so blown away by this film that I couldn't help describing it in detail to my kids. What happened next surprised me: my younger son was dying to see the film. What happened then surprised me even more: he LOVED it.

Specs:
Almost 2 hours, black and white. Not a silent film, but dealing with themes of the silent era.
Available on dvd and on Netflix.

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I am feeling proud right now. Justifiably proud I think. For I doubt there are many 10 year olds who could watch and love Sunset Boulevard with a real appreciation for what that film is trying to say. To really get it and also to love it, is amazing for a modern kid. And there is no way, my son would have done so a few months ago, before this festival. He gets the deep sadness; the elated iconic status; the fast loss of the silent era and the quick way the movies changed, like a tornado blasting out old things and leaving destroyed lives in their wake. He was moved to see Buster Keaton in the short cameo as a washed up relic. He appreciated the contrasting acting styles from the overblown and slightly crazy performance of Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond, to the 1950s cool William Holden. We had seen and been to the places in LA where the 1920s movie star mansions were -- he understood about the level of fame they had attained.

The film is fantastic. Part black comedy, part film noir, part disfunctional romance, the movie is not really scary, but its definitely freaky. It is sad and depressing and shows Hollywood at its worst. It is also brilliantly filmed and acted. Swanson as Norma Desmond gives a performance so visceral and real it hardly seems possible she's acting.

One of the best lines ever spoken in any movie ever:
"You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."

And I love it when Norma speaks of the golden age of silents:
"There was a time in this business when they had the eyes of the whole world. But that wasn't good enough for them. Oh no. They had to have the ears of the whole world too. So they opened their big mouths and out came talk talk talk!"

While watching herself onscreen in one of her star roles:
"Still wonderful isn't it. And no dialog. We didn't need dialog; we had faces."

I love that line so much, because she's right. As a fan of silent film, I see exactly what she meant and I really feel that loss.

Iconic shot:

Adam's Rib (1949)

Why it's here:
I was drawn to the Hepburn/Tracy pairing, knowing of their famous on- and off-screen chemistry and thought this one, with it's law drama and courtroom humor, might make a good choice.

Specs:
Over an hour and a half; black and white. We watched on a dvd from the library

Our family's average rating:
6.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Although both Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are great actors and this was probably a very relevant and witty film in its own time, it felt more than a bit dated to us.

Curious that Adam's Rib was our lowest rated film since The Lady Eve and I'm wondering if Adam and Eve just aren't where its at for us. . . . I'll be interested to see how All About Eve plays for us next week. . . .

I spent a fair amount of time wondering if I'd made a mistake introducing this material to my kid. The film starts with an attempted murder where a jilted wife follows her husband to another woman's apartment. The themes of adultery and spousal abuse are heavy and, by modern standards, pretty unsettling, though clearly meant to be light-hearted and played for comedy at the time. The film explores the ideas of how spouses mistreat one another and drive each other away. The plot twist comes from Tracy playing the prosecutor who is attempting to convict the murderous jilted wife while the prosecutor's wife, Hepburn, plays the private practice defense attorney who takes on the job of defending said murderous jilted wife.

The underlying marital problems of our defendant/victim couple are mirrored (or maybe prism-ed)  through the lawyers' own marriage as the case gets further along.

These are fairly adult and unpleasant themes dealing with the worst sides of a marriage; though, very loving and caring sides to marriage are shown as well. The film is very sexist by today's standards (though it plays as if meant to be a feminist message). All in all, though an interesting film and clearly well-acted, it is probably not best suited to family viewing.

Iconic shot:

The Noose Hangs High (1948)

Why it's here:
We'd seen the "Who's on First Routine" and found it hilarious. Why not try a whole movie with the comedy talents of Abbott and Costello.

Specs:
1 hour, 15 min; black and white. We watched this one on Netflix

Our family's average rating:
7.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The comedy of Abbott and Costello is extremely well-suited to modern, smart-alecky kids. My boys loved this. The humor is found both in fast-talking, smart dialog and also physical and visual  pratfalls and hijinks. As such, it hits on all cylinders for kids.  One of the funnier bits involves Abbott's character repeatedly putting on and taking off his pants. Another funny moment comes as Costello pulls a gag on a gangster thug by betting him that he, Costello, "isn't here" -- and actually managing to win the bet. You gotta see that.

The movie is simple of plot, but really delightful in that simplicity. It doesn't try to hard to be something it isn't -- it just showcases how funny these guy's are.

Considering some of the big-budget spectacles we've seen lately, this one just seemed basic and true and reminded me of the silent-era comedies we love, where the ability of a film to win you over was basically a function of the pure comic talent and not of film-making spectacle. It felt really good to watch a movie like this in 1948.

Iconic shot:

Easter Parade (1948)

Why it's here:
I guess, to see Judy Garland and Fred Astair. Seemed like an odd pairing

Specs:
An hour and 45 minutes; COLOR with a capital "C" -- I guess with all caps.
Supposedly set in 1912 :)

Our family's average rating:
6.88

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This serves as an extraordinary exposition of Technicolor. Half the point of making this film must have been to showcase "color" -- deep lush velvet and silk fabric drapes in every color, enormous bouquets of flowers, gowns with sequins and fringe, all overdone in the most saturated tones imaginable.

Even at age 50, Fred Astair moves like a dream on a cloud. He must be the most graceful man to have ever danced. As we watched his dance scenes with Judy Garland - who is a lovely dancer, but primarily a singer, we could see the difference with his top-notch dancing skills. He moved with total fluidity. On the other hand, Judy sang with complete power, skill, style and talent. Fred couldn't hold a candle to her pipes. The movie benefits, oddly enough, by allowing each to shine in their own way and help showcase the other's complementary talent.

The supporting roles were enjoyable as well. Peter Lawford and Ann Miller play the alternate love interests and, up until the end, my younger son and I were sure that Judy would end up with Peter, and Fred with Ann. Jules Munshin, an actor I'd never heard of, gives a wonderfully funny performance as a waiter. His description of how he makes the salad was comic genius.

Rounding out the film were awesome Irving Berlin songs, which are now resonating in our heads,  some incredibly elaborate sets, a very cool special (dance) effect where Astair moves in slow motion relative to the background dancers filmed at normal time. This movie had to have had a big budget and, all in all, was very enjoyable - though we would have enjoyed it a fair bit more had it been about 15 minutes shorter. I think it's rating must have dipped at least a 1/2 point by lasting just that bit too long!

It irked me to no end that the picture was set in 1912 when almost nothing about the film (other than an occasional car or telephone) looked anything like it belonged in 1912. Not the hairstyles, nor the clothes, nor the furnishings, the music, dance styles or the male/female relationships gave any impression of 1912. In fact, though the picture was released in 1948 I thought it had a very 1950s look and sound.

Iconic shot:

Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948)

Why it's here:
Someone recommended this to my husband. Problem is, he doesn't remember who : ) So we know somebody thought it worth seeing and put it on the list.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours; black and white.

Our family's average rating:
7.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film has a bit of a slow start as we explore Grant's feeling hemmed-in in his New York apartment. Grant, a big time Madison Ave. ad man (a dozen years before Mad Men is set) is frustrated with his urban life and convinced that moving out into the country will address what ails him, his wife (lovely Myrna Loy) and their two daughters. They set about building the house that will be an escape from it all. Unfortunately, every financial deal he undertakes blows up in his face. It's the makings of a "city slick meets country stubborn" tale and it ends up being a pretty good one.

The film is different than other Cary Grant films we've seen in that its a bit slower, sweeter and domestic. It is great to experience Grant as the straight man while Melvin Douglas, who I had not really seen before, hams it up as the hilarious wise-cracking lawyer/best friend. Loy, too, is a joy in the film and the performances of these three lift the film out of what might otherwise have been just mildly amusing, into something worth spending the time with.

The kids really got a kick out of the construction scenes -- especially seeing the steam shovel that looked just like Marianne (from Mike Mulligan) digging the basement, carpenters using hand saws and hammers, the awesome guy who dug the well, the odd little closet upstairs that people kept getting locked inside, and on and on.

In terms of a history/learning moment, it depicts the earliest migration of the upper class out of cities and into larger tracts of land in the suburbs in search of that little slice of paradise and is interesting for that reason as well. All of this adds up to an excellent film for family viewing, though not necessarily amazing cinema.

Iconic shot:

Hamlet (1948)

Why it's here:
Our dip into Shakespeare. I really wanted the boys to see Laurence Olivier, widely regarded as the best actor of a generation, in this influential role.

Specs:
2 1/2 hours, black and white. We watched on a dvd from the library.

Our family's average rating:
7.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I wasnt' sure how the boys would take to full lenth Hamlet. They'd experienced some Shakespeare including having acted vignettes from his comedies, so we weren't totally unfamiliar with Shakespeare, but this was to be a big step into that world...  this was Hamlet -- not modernized, abridged or simplified; so I wondered.

Unnecessarily. In fact they loved it. No, they didn't understand every bit. I had to narrate a bit of the action and explain things here and there, but this didn't affect their abilty to appreciate the wonderful, clean rendition of the classic play. There is nothing distracting here to take you away from the underlying brilliance of the story. Just Shakespeare and excellent acting.

I loved this comment from a contemporary review in the New York Times, praising the just-released film:

[By being presented in the format of film rather than on the stage, Olivier's] Hamlet makes the play more evident by bringing it closer to you. The subtle reactions of the characters, the movements of their faces and forms, which can be so dramatically expressive and which are more or less remote on the stage, are here made emotionally incisive by their normal proximity. Coupled with beautiful acting and inspired interpretations all the way, this visual closeness to the drama offers insights that are brilliant and rare.

What a great point! It makes sense to capitalize on the natural closeness of film to really introduce your kids to Shakespeare, rather than going to see stage productions.  We talked about Olivier's performance as Hamlet and why it was so universally praised. We are not actors ourselves and we don't speak the "jargon" that makes talking about his talent easy, but we found him compelling. He just was this character. Totally believable. He conveyed such earnest, intense, intellect with the role. Incredible.

Iconic shot:

Life with Father (1947)

Why it's here:
We needed more William Powell. This one had the added bonus of Liz Taylor just a couple of years after National Velvet.

Specs:
2 hours; color. We could only find it on VHS tape from our library.
Set in Victorian England.

Our family's average rating:
7.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
William Powell is the highlight of the film and is awesomely funny throughout. He had us in stiches with his out-of-touch, pompous dad, terrorizing the servants, criticizing his wife's relatives, ordering about his children, and generally blustering about. Best of all were his interactions with his wife (Irene Dunn) who somehow always came away with what she wanted. We couldn't quite tell if she was extra intelligent or extra ditzty, but either way, she managed to get the best of dad most of the time.

This film probably lasted about 20 minuteslonger than the plot required, but we didn't mind because of William Powell - I think we'd have happily watched him for another hour.

A side note is that the quality of the tape we watched was quite poor. The day after suffering through the weak color and staticky picture, we were flipping channels and saw that it was being broadcast on TMC! If you can catch it on dvd, or on television broadcast you might enjoy it more, but in any case, enjoy!

Iconic shot:

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947)

Why it's here:
Combo love story and ghost story. How can you go wrong with that.

Specs:
Over and hour and a half, black and white.
Set at the turn of the century England

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Although the film is not a horror film or a thriller, and the "ghost" in the case ends up being very nice, audiences should know that before we get comfortable with our ghost, the movie is actually quite frightening. When Mrs. Muir is looking to rent a lonely seaside cabin, and it appears that the house is haunted, tension is intensionally played up and the film is sure to frighten some kids.

The scariness evaporates as soon as we get to know the ghost better. The "relationship" between him and our leading lady is wonderful and quirky enough to carry the movie. The acting is very good throughout, especially Rex Harrison as the ghost. Natalie Wood even appears as Mrs. Muir's young daughter.

One of the coolest things about this picture was seeing Palos Verdes, in LA, where the seaside cabin was filmed. So amazing, circa 1947, to see all that primo real estate empty -- and the area so remote. Crazy to think that any part of LA could have passed as the quaint English seaside. But it worked.

Iconic shot:

Notorious (1946)

Why it's here:
Included as one of my all time favorite films.

Specs:
Just over an hour and a half, black and white. Available on dvd in a beautifully restored version with lots of special features.

Our family's rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.75

More about the film and our reaction to it:
In the commentary to the film, Alfred Hitchcock is quoted as explaining the difference between "surprise" and "suspense." A bomb unexpectedly going off, he says, causes surprise and you have the audience's reaction for a few short seconds. But, he says, if you first disclose that there is a bomb, allow the camera to show where it is, then, cut to a clock and film people chatting about stupid things, all the while the the viewer is thinking "look underneath the table! there's a bomb! don't just sit there chatting!" -- well, that's suspense and it can last for a long time.

In Notorious, suspense is everywhere and used so powerfully, that viewer can hardly breathe. One of the most powerful dramatic devices, for instance, is the camera showing the champagne bottles at the climatic party, fewer and fewer of them, and with each one gone, a growing likelihood that Claude Rains will have to go to the wine cellar. The brilliance of Hitchcock lies in his use of simple objects (like the key to the wine cellar) taking on so much meaning. Hitch can make a key an object of tension! I found it hilarious that after the movie, while cleaning up in the kitchen, I looked at the counter where my husband's key ring was lying and it gave me a real start!

The film is profoundly good both a thrilling spy story and a powerful romance. The briefest plot summary goes like this: Bergman plays Alicia, who's father is sentenced for treason at the start of the film. We learn that she is a devil-may-care party girl and does not share her father's politics. She is approached by the spy, Devlin (Grant), to do a job for the feds, infiltrating the organization that her father had been a part of. In doing so, she gets close to, and ultimately marries Alex Sebastian (Claude Rains).

Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman are incredible stars and give profoundly great performances. Their relationship is nuanced, beautiful and heartbreaking. They are both loved by the camera and you can just gaze at their beauty for an hour and a half without needing more. But, there is so much more . . . On the spy story end, it is amazing how much tension and fear can be created when there is absolutely no violence, gore, terror or death shown on screen or even threatened. The script is fantastic, and the cinematography dramatic, meaningful and very beautiful. All aspects of the film seem to layer on top of the others to add to the experience. Even hairstyles and costumes are meaningful. Edith Head dressed Ingrid Bergman stunningly and so appropriate to the themes and drama.

Family viewing notes:
Although my 10 year old was impressed with the movie (its hard not to be), I would recommend this one for 13+ simply because the plot is too complex and the human emotion too grown up to really expect most children to follow or enjoy. On the other hand, because there is no real violence nor outright fear-inducing scenes, and most of the troublesome undertones will be incomprehensible to younger kids, it makes a good starting picture for younger people to experience Hitchcock.

The film is full of adult themes - ultimately Alicia is willing to sleep with the enemy and even marry him to serve her country - though, is it really to serve her country?? Oddly, she seems to marry this other man because Devlin wishes it - or at least doesn't tell her not to. There is extraordinary passion depicted between the two (famously, through a very long passionate kissing scene, punctuated for dialog every couple of seconds so as not to run afoul of the censor's 3-second kissing rule). There is also a fair amount of inuendo and slights on Alicia's character for being a woman of loose morals who has been with many men in her life. The double standard for women is unsettling.

Iconic shot:

Mildred Pierce (1945)

Why it's here:
To include something by Joan Crawford in our festival. This film not only won Crawford an Academy Award but is also generally spoken of as some of her best work.

Specs:
Almost 2 hours, black and white, available on dvd

Our family'a average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film was quite good - a murder mystery wrapped up in a melodramatic tale that is a bit like a modern soap opera. Crawford plays the title character, who is a sympathetic, hard-working divorced mother. She gets ahead and manages to succeed fiscally, though she makes a mess of her personal life.

A murder opens the movie, and then the story unfolds through narrative as told by Mildred. I don't want to give any plot points away because the relationships and the mystery all unfold slowly and very well to create the tension in the film. However, parents should know that in addition to all the regular Hollywood stuff of the era (drinking, smoking, cheating, not to mention the underlying murder). . . there are disturbing themes regarding the older child's retrenched worship of money and status, and her clashes with her mother. It is a very interesting storyline and likely to provoke strong reactions. Also, the death of a child is an upsetting moment.

There's no doubt the picture belongs to Crawford, but there are other wonderful performances - notably Jack Carson as a real estate agent/friend who is smarmy but basically a good guy and Eve Arden who plays a supportive friend and business associate of Mildred's who has unfortunately too small a role. Mildred's messed up daughter is played well by Ann Blythe in a "love to hate her" role. Butterfly McQueen is also there providing some needed comic relief.

My older son noticed that the character Mildred is a bit like Scarlett O'Hara in that they were both strong women who worked hard to become successful. I thought that was a great insight. In fact, they are alike in another way - they both destroyed their personal lives in the attempt: Scarlett trying to desperately to win Ashley's love and Mildred trying against reason to give her already spoiled daughter every material thing she wants.

I had never seen a Crawford movie before and was truly impressed with her. She is very lovely. She has a businesslike charm and moves with a fluid grace that is easy to watch. Anyone wishing to know more about her (beneath the caricature), should see this movie. At the time of this film, she was a well-established actress (some might say already a has-been), and her "look" fully developed (the lips, the strong shoulders, the swept up hair, the long-lashed eyes), but she was still natural and, frankly, beautiful beyond what I was expecting. I was not anticipating her to be so fluid and believable.

On the dvd is an excellent special feature about the actress. Years have passed since Mommy Dearest took hold of the world's imagination and maybe there are people out there unfamiliar with Joan's daughter Christina's book detailing her unhappy childhood and shocking life with her mother. The special feature attempts to shed light on "who was Joan Crawford" and it neither ignores the negatives (like her obsessive tendencies, preoccupation with image and career, controlling temperament, and her poor (to abusive) parenting skills) nor paints her only with that brush. It seems to me that Joan, in addition to suffering from alcoholism, most certainly grappled with other personality disorders (maybe OCD). and clearly had a fair amount of personal troubles to struggle against.

But her career, in context, is fascinating. In early Hollywood, she most admirably worked very hard as a chorus girl, took on roles that would get her noticed and paid attention to publicity and image. She got to know, and took a special interest in, the behind-the-scenes team and paid close attention to the technical end of pictures - the lighting, the editing, the directing. These are qualities that tend to play-in to the idea of her being "a control freak", but had she been a man doing the same, chances are they would have been qualities that lead to her being called "a director." I wonder if a woman with Joan's same drive and interest -- in today's Hollywood -- with greater opportunities available to her, might be pour her energy into channels that could keep her grounded and healthy, unlike what happened to Joan?

As far as her image goes, I've always pictured Crawford in her later days with the crazy hair-horns, thick drawn eyebrows, oddly accentuated lips, etc. I picture her as intense, stiff and set, but in the clips from these early days she is anything but. She has tremendous energy and a great looseness in her movements. She was a perfect flapper type - though maybe too intelligent for that archetype. She clearly was always driven and has an odd duality about her that makes her look both relaxed and attentive at the same time. She seemed even then, ready to have it all -- and to fight to keep it.

Iconic shot:

National Velvet (1944)

Why it's here:
It's fun to see major film stars in roles they did as children. I never saw this movie before, and it seemed a perfect choice to introduce the kids to Liz Taylor.

Specs:
2 hours. Technicolor
Set in late 1920s England.

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Elizabeth Taylor is extremely appealing as Velvet. It's hard to think of a good description that doesn't involve the word "winsome". She is adorable in every way but not grating. You want her to succeed - to get the horse, to compete, to win, to be happy. She is engaging and lovely and clearly already has the makings of a major star.

The supporting cast is wonderful as well. Mickey Rooney is excellent as the young, but already jaded, former jockey. Anne Revere, who plays Velvet's mom, is incredible. I was unfamiliar with her work but was blown away by her talent. She got most of the best lines in the film - dispensing sage and often just slightly satiric advice to all who are within her reach.

Though the acting is good and the story is sound, the production itself is the weak link.  Although it is in Technicolor, the dvd we watched was not beautiful. I don't know if its a matter of time gone by and restoration needed or what. The colors were pleasant, but not as gorgeous as Technicolor usually is. Still, anytime we get a color movie the boys are always excited about it. Also, the backgrounds are clearly often supplemented by matte painting and not as seamless as you sometimes see. I was distracted by the girls' costumes which did not look authentic to the period, nor did their hairstyles. All in all, production values were not up to the standards of the bigger budget productions. This felt second-tier. Nonetheless, overall the film is very watchable and makes great and fitting family entertainment.

Iconic shot:

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

Why it's here:
This is often regarded as one of the finest musicals ever made. We wanted to see if that was true, and loved that it would showcase the talents of Judy Garland as a young adult a few years after we became familiar with her as Dorothy.

Specs:
Two hours, gorgeous TECHNICOLOR! We watched on a dvd from the library.
The film is set in 1903-04

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.88

More about the film and our reaction to it:
As my husband put it: "this really is, truly, just good entertainment."  Sometimes films are "great" just because of how well made they are. Its not the story, or even the acting, that is the hook, but rather, the production as a whole. It is clear that every little detail has been attended to. It benefits from beautiful cinematography in the camera angles, the movement, and the placement of objects -- are all just simply lovely. The costumes are wonderful and so colorful -- the color being sharp, intense, but very real and moving. It is an excellent piece of technicolor cinema. The songs are excellent and the whole thing just has heart. It is hard to explain why its so good. It just is.

The first moment Judy Garland sang is the moment my breath stopped and my heart leaped into my throat. She was an incredible talent and an emotional performer. You respond to her voice in a visceral way. Some of the songs in the film will be familiar, even if you aren't a fan of musicals (Meet Me in St. Louis, Louis... Bang Bang Bang Went the Trolly... even, Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas).

The underlying story involves a family in St. Louis at the time of the Worlds' Fair. The two eldest daughters and their beaux, form the main story, but smallest sister "Tootie", played charmingly by Margaret O'Brien is a source of constant comic relief with her obsession with death. It is an unusual film that constantly feels different from what the viewer is used to. It sort of strikes out its own territory with light comedy and music, but some silly or almost surreal aspects and a deeper emotional drama too. The whole thing is filmed with such a tight strong vision that, as you are watching (like with Citizen Kane), you just get the feeling that you are watching someone's masterwork (here, Vincente Minnelli's).

Iconic Image:

Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

Why it's here:
Recommended by a friend, this highly acclaimed film was in production when the bombing of Pearl Harbor took place. Already patriotic in its themes, telling the life story of George M. Cohen, author of the WWI anthem Over There, the film's patriotism took on massive new heights with the energized crowds at the start of WWII. It hit a major chord with audiences and enjoyed a riveting profoundly good performance from James Cagney in the lead role.

Specs:
Just over 2 hours; black and white. Available on dvd.
Set over a range of years beginning in 1878 and leading up to "modern" times.

Our family's average rating:
6.83

More about the film and our reaction to it:
My kids were less impressed with the film this than I was, and my husband refused to even watch it - as he has some strange deep-seated abhorance of James Cagney. But I found Cagney absolutely amazing. He is an actor with astonishing range. I haven't seen much of his work, but associate him mostly with dark, violent, gangster pictures. Here he is a singing dancing dynamo with incredible musical talent.

He has an intensity that shines out of him and you can see how someone with so much personality became a great tough-guy icon. His performance as George M. Cohan is nothing short of brilliant and I was blown away by it. That said, I can't say I loved the film as much of critics of the day did. But then, I am not on the treshhold of a new world war as they were when this deeply patriotic and touching film was released. According to one of the actresses in the film, the patriotic mood "permeated the set almost every day."

Cohan was THE Broadway songwriter of his time, and the film, as a biopic of his life, is less of a story than a series of vignettes from his musicals. There wasn't a great deal of plot to follow, but what was there, was interesting. Like many other stars of his time, he virtually grew-up on stage, in Vaudeville and other venues. His family's act (The Four Cohan's) toured and performed constantly. As a result, Cohan became deeply familiar with the ins and out of showbiz and ultimately penned some amazingly catchy and clever tunes. The film showcases many, but the ones most viewers are likely to be familiar with are "You're a Grand Old Flag," "Give My Regards to Broadway", the major WWI war anthem "Over There", and of course the title tune "Yankee Doodle Dandy" (you know the  one: I'm a yankee doodle dandy; yankee doodle do or die; a real live nephew of my Uncle Sam, born on the 4th of July. . .")

Iconic shot:

The Road to Morocco (1942)

Why it's here:
To see the comedy team of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby in one of their famous "road" pictures.

Specs:
Hour and a half, black and white. This is one of seven films featuring the same basic gag of our leads "On the Road..." to somewhere.

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is what we would nowadays call a 'buddy picture', featuring two wise cracking smart-alecs cruising around the countryside, trading insults, laughing and trying not to get killed. (In this case, there's singing too). The most similar modern film I can think of is Shanghai Knights with Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson.

The cool thing about getting your buddy flick fix in the classic era, is that you get all the humor of the buddy picture without all the raunchy stuff they put in them these days.  This film is not just hilarious, but very family friendly too. ...with the one caveat that it is not particularly socially sensitive. Cultural stereotypes abound, and there is a bit where mental retardation is made fun of. I know that's not cool, and we had a nice conversation with the kids about how the standards for what is OK to make fun of have changed over time, but still...  These elements did not feel offensive, because the movie is so light-hearted and happy go lucky, and because our main characters spend just as much time skewering themselves as anyone else. It was clear that the whole movie was delightfully fun to make.

The movie is so packed with snappy dialogue and one-liners that we "had" to watch it twice just to hear everything :)  The chemistry between Bob Hope and Bing Crosby is tremendous. We talked about how Crosby was predominately known as a singer (who was also funny) and Hope was predominately a comedian (who also sang). Hope has extraordinary comic timing. If you haven't seen him lately, or haven't seen him in his prime, then you need to watch this film.

And I don't want to leave out Dorothy Lamour who costarred in all the "road" pictures with the guys -- and is talented, funny and charming.

Iconic Shot:

Pride of the Yankees (1942)

Why it's here:
Baseball player Lou Gehrig was an inspirational athlete and an iconic figure; this movie about his life, starring Gary Cooper, was highly acclaimed in its time and still well-regarded.

Specs:
Just over two hours, black and white

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film is good primarily because Gehrig, an athlete worthy of hero status, has a powerful, touching and very sad life story. Gehrig was a massively talented and popular player on the New York Yankees, playing ball in the 1920s and 30s. He was known as The Iron Horse for his amazing streak of simply going to the park and playing the game, day after day after day for years on end. For over 2100 days in a row -- a matter of 16 years -- he played every ballgame. He even played on the day he got married. Caring and upstanding, a good man and a great ballplayer, he is the kind of hero America would be lucky to have more of.

His story is a love story too and the movie traces his relationship with his supportive wife and their flirty, friendly love. In addition to the skill and the love, there is the tragic piece of his debilitative disease that prevents him from playing ball (and ultimately takes his life, though the movie ends with him very much alive after giving his famous "luckiest man on the face of the earth" speech).  It is a moving moment and if you watch this film, prepare for tears (probably your own).

Gary Cooper's performance as Gehrig (the man) is wonderful, though it's been criticized for not being athletic enough to give a sense of Gehrig-the-ballplayer. Its true he doesn't seem to bring love of baseball to the role (the way, say, Kevin Costner does in Field of Dreams); but ultimately baseball is more of a backdrop to this story -- the real importance is Gehrig as a man, and Cooper nails that. His performance of the speech scene is so excellent, it is almost as good to watch as the footage of Gehrig's actual speech.

The movie may suffer a bit from lack of focus, pulling in a bit too many odd little details and it also drags on a bit long. It is too flawed to say its a "great movie," but we have no problem saying it is a "great story" and is therefore definitely worth watching.

Iconic shot:

Casablanca (1942)

Why it's here:
Few classic films are better known or better made. Cassablanca represents a perfect moment in cinema that should be experienced.

Specs:
About 2 hours, black and white.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
8.0

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
If there is anything more beautiful than Ingrid Bergman's face, I certainly have not seen it. All I need to know about the world of romantic love and tension can be read in it. Her relationship and chemistry with Humphrey Bogart are so strong that they steal my heart without effort; in fact, I imagine they could get to the heart of pretty much anyone who watches -- kids included. There is no question that the power of this movie is the underlying romance.

But the even cooler thing, is that Casablanca goes far beyond romance to pull in its audience. Full of intrigue that will grab your family from the beginning, its an exciting picture about war and politics, with fabulous uniforms, nationalities, threads of international politics and patriotism. The characters are nuanced enough that you can't always tell who to root for. Thus, its an accessible plot that makes you feel adult when you watch it.

My kids love Peter Lorre (who we also enjoyed in the Maltese Falcon) as a strangely exciting and eccentric character and were thrilled to also see Sydney Greenstreet again. Among the film's stellar performances is that of Claude Rains as a kinda funny, cool, unknown entity. And once again, Bogart plays an extremely cool main man -- someone you can't tear your eyes from and whose every move seems important. He is fabulous.

As with pretty much all old movies, there's lots of drinking and smoking -- and plenty of seedier topics. The nice thing with old movies, is that the seedier aspects of life are glossed over and nothing is too explicit; although a great deal may be implied. And also, as with many old films, the one-liners are awesome. The kids laughed aloud at lines like "round up the usual suspects" and "'this gun is pointing at your heart' 'that's my least vulnerable spot.

Iconic shot:

Maltese Falcon (1941)

Why it's here:
Suggested by a friend as a must see for our festival. Boy was she right.

Specs:
1 hr 40 minutes, black and white. Available on dvd

Our family's average rating on a 1-10 scale:
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
There's something about star power. Regardless of the era, regardless of the genre, regardless of color, black & white, sound or silence, and regardless of whether you are 10 or 40, you know it when you see it. And Humphrey Bogart had it. The man just controlled the screen. His voice, his smile, his cool demeanor and great hats...all adds up to one sweet gumshoe.

This film was mesmerizing and compelling, even though we didn't always follow the clever plot,; we were spellbound by the drama. Its enough to say this is your basic detective story. Murder, intrigue, twists and turns, satisfying conclusion and, by the end, a wish that this were a series rather than a single movie. Because you just can't get enough of lines like "he's so full of holes he couldn't have gone far," "when I slap you you'll take it and like it," "keep on riding me and they're gonna be picking iron out of your liver," or the classic "I couldn't be fonder of you if you were my own son. But if you lose a son its possible to get another. There's only one Maltese Falcon."

Talented actors fill the cast - Mary Astor gives an incredibly interesting and believable performance as the apparently distraught sister who hands Bogart's Sam Spade the case and then turns out to be much much more. Fabulous Sydney Greenstreet is the big man sitting back and pulling all the strings. But most of all, the boys loved Peter Lorre as the wheezy-voiced, tightly-wound, nevertheless polite gangster Joel Cairo, with whom Spade has some tremendous interactions.

Iconic shot:

The Lady Eve (1941)

Why it's here:
To include something from Barbara Stanwyck. This was directed by Preston Sturges and was supposed to be hilarious

Specs:
Hour and a half, black and white. Available on dvd

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Though billed as a screwball comedy, this one really wasn't laugh aloud funny or charming to us. Although there were some funny parts, the movie had the overarching theme of card sharps taking our sympathetic hero for a ride. Worse still, Barbara Stanwyck's character spends much of the movie stalking Fonda to torment him, with vengeful and cruel motives. These don't add up to side-splitting humor any more than say, Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction did (and no, that's not on the list).

The movie was well-made, obviously, and the performances were good throughout -- leading us to appreciate the talent behind the movie, its just that none of us really liked it all that much. On top of that, because the film delves into unpleasantries in romantic relationships and spends a good deal of time at the beginning with seductive and passionate interactions that might be a little much, we really wouldn't recommend it for family viewing.

One clear highlight of the picture that needs mentioning though was Stanwick's glorious wardrobe, designed by superstar Edith Head.

Iconic shot:

Citizen Kane (1941)

Why it's here
Often spoken of as the best film ever made, Citizen Kane seemed to be an important film to put on the list.

Specs:
About 2 hours, black and white, available on dvd

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
7.25

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
Well here we are, at what is probably the most acclaimed classic of all time. Orson Welles' masterpiece, molded upon the life of William Randolph Hearst, and thereby incurring Hearst's ire and campaign of mass negative publicity until the film struggled to simply get seen. This amazing backstory, in heady shades of detail that I won't even try to get into, is so fascinating it almost rivals the film for dramatic appeal.

Almost. There was no doubt while we watched this film that we were watching something simply,  palpably and profoundly well made. We are not experts and we don't have the background and terminology to explain what makes it so good. But even to laypeople like us, you can just tell when you're watching greatness. Citizen Kane was clearly made by someone who had a profound vision for the story he was telling.

If I knew what I was talking about, I'd speak of the editing choices, the way the shots were framed, the use of shadow and symbolic light, the cutting back and forth through different timeframes, the specific use of sound effects - echoes, bird squawks, yelling, whispering; the miraculous ability of the makeup team to convincingly age our lead man, the way the plot unfolds though interviews, the complex characterization of Charles Foster Kane, his various relationships, and his depressing, tortuous descent. But luckily there is really no need for me to do this. It is clearly complex and artfully made. . . the question is: should you and your family watch it?

As a family film choice, kids under about 13 are unlikely to respond to the movie. Kids above that age might -- but even then, it is probably not a safe bet. With such intelligent, grown-up themes and a plot that is intricate and made harder to follow by the constant moving back and forth through time, this would not be the easiest film choice for families. But, that said, my family did get a lot out of the film. We all admired the work, though its hard to say that the kids enjoyed it. They were, however, moved and saddened by the fascinating ending and were certainly able to take away from the film the sense that what caused this very powerful rich man the most regret and longing were thoughts of his empty childhood. That message is such a good one for young people to see.

Iconic shot:

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

Why it's included:
Directed by George Cukor and starring not just Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant, but Jimmy Stewart as well. What's not to love.

Specs:
About 2 hours, black and white. Available on dvd. Our library had a copy

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.33

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I do get star-struck, I can't lie. Halfway through the movie I was sitting there watching Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart sharing the screen and felt giddy and goose pimply. Here were three enormous talents with enough star power to light up the sky for a week, together in a smart, sophisticated, beautifully filmed production. It is really almost more than words can get around.

This is a brilliant picture -- in the bright sparkly wonderful sense of the word. I've seen it several times and wanted to share it with my kids, but after having done so, I do have to say that on the whole this might not have been the best movie choice for families.  The film really is over the head of most kids with its adult themes (divorce, philandering husbands, heavy social drinking and its after-effects, the intrusiveness of the press, blackmail, etc. etc.) not to mention its witty, ironic tone. But the performances are wonderful throughout and one of our favorites was the 13 year old actress, Virginia Weidler, who played Hepburn's little sister in a charming and very funny way. The humor in the film is more grown up and glittering, than some of the screwball comedies we've been watching of the era, so we appreciated a slightly different style of movie.

While both of my kids liked the movie, their 11 year old friend who was over only gave it a "3"! My kids are a bit more used to classics and already knew the three leads from other film appearances, which always adds to the experience, but overall, it is probably less accessible for family viewing than some others we've watched.

That said, it is cool that shortly after watching this, we caught a reference to the film in an episode of the TV show Phineas and Ferb! "My she was yar!" is a line exchanged a couple of times as the characters reminisce over their happier days on a yacht designed by Grant's character CK Dexter Haven. ("Yar" meaning particularly well-built, seaworthy and fine.) We spent a fair amount of time discussing the idea of "yar". So we nearly swallowed our gum when Phineas said the same about about an ocean liner he'd just built for his friend: "My she's yar!" An homage to The Philadelphia Story for sure. One of the neatest things about watching classics has been noticing that references to classic film is all around us in pop culture.  We are pretty sure that most other viewers of Phineas and Ferb did not pick up on this one.

Iconic shot:

The Grapes of Wrath (1940)

Why it's included:
We wanted to see Henry Fonda at various stages of his long career. The Grapes of Wrath -- a wonderful adaptation of a poignant novel -- was a perfect choice. My only concern was weather the kids could handle the pain of the Great Depression and the power of the movie's themes. The answer was 'yes'.

Specs:
Just over 2 hours, black and white. We watched on a dvd from the local library.
The film is set during the Dust Bowl

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.33

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is an extremely powerful and well made movie about an important and very real topic in American history. Although it is probably better suited to the 12+ crowd, for its themes, my 10 year old got a lot out of it too.

For any one who doesn't know, the film, based on the John Steinbeck novel of the same name,  opens with Tom Joad (Fonda) getting out of prison and returning home to find his family and neighbors in the throes of the dust bowl in Oklahoma. Sharecroppers, they are forced off their land by wealthier landowners attempting to put more acreage under mechanized farming. The Joads move west toward what they hope will be greener pastures, in response to advertising pamphlets that have overstated the land of opportunity that is California. The story chronicles their difficult journey west and the conditions of life they meet and endure once there.

This is beautifully acted, directed and photographed. The landscapes are so starkly gorgeous, they are highly evocative. The performances of Henry Fonda and Jane Darwell, as Tom's mother are simply phenomenal and director John Ford, has a clear knack for how to just back off and tell a story. This makes for an exceedingly heart-wrenching and moving tale that will give your kids a powerful understanding of what was going on in our country at this time. We highly recommend it -- but only for those who can handle these themes.
The film ultimately has an uplifting message of hope and fighting injustice (with Henry Fonda's famous "I'll be there" speech to his mother at the end), but there's no getting around the idea that the movie is a serious downer.

Iconic shot:

His Girl Friday (1940)

Why it's here:
Cary Grant may be the reason it got put on our list, but truly, the reason should be Rosalind Russel. Russel is amazing in this great fast-talking, sharp-witted power roll.

Specs:
1 and 1/2 hours - Black and white. And very much a talkie :)

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Welcome to 1940! Its hard to believe we're in the 40s already, but what better way to welcome them in than with one of my favorite Cary Grant films, His Girl Friday.

I love Cary Grant. I do, but in this film, the powerhouse attraction is truly Rosalind Russel. I am not sure, but I'd bet she has more screen time than Grant. She certainly fills my mind till it is spilling over and, when all is said and done, feels like the true the star of the film. Though Grant is undoubtedly essential to its greatness.

They say that this is the first film where actors overlapped their lines so that one started talking while the other was still speaking. That touch adds immeasurably to the intense dynamic feel of the film. So too does the press room with fast-paced phone calls and reporters barking out their stories. This is a fast furious funny movie, directed by Howard Hawkes to a perfect pitch.

Be aware that the fast pace and quick witted dialog makes it pretty hard to follow the action (for adults as well as kids). And although there probably are all sorts of adult themes buried in the dialog, there's no way anyone can understand them well enough to be bothered by them : )  Just strap on a seatbelt and enjoy as much of the picture as you can get your ears around.

Iconic shot:

Stagecoach (1939)

Why it's here:
We needed to watch John Wayne. I'd heard a lot about this one as the first pairing of John Wayne with John Ford the famous director of Westerns -- and as the movie that made John Wayne a star.

Specs:
About an hour and a half long, black and white. Available on dvd.
The film is set in 1880.

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.0

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
It's always a good sign when immediately after watching a movie the kids get up and start playing. Whether its grabbing bows and arrows after Robin Hood, or climbing the walls (literally) after Buster Keaton, or pulling out the Nerf guns and having a shootout after tonights entry, it makes me smile a gratified smile.

The film is a top notch quality Western. Whether you love the genre or put up with it, Hollywood Westerns are a force of nature that should be sampled and you can't go wrong with this one. The film builds tension to a slow steady burn, creating a sense of drama though almost nothing "happens" through 2/3 of the movie. The last half hour, when Apache Indians (played to Ford's credit by Native actors) start to fire upon the stage is thrilling stuff.

So, yes, the movie does have some tough violent themes. It also has talk of prison and social ostracism and reference to the leading lady's character and repute (treated with a light brush, but treated). There is a good deal of drinking hard alcohol -- humorously, and by one character in particular. All these elements are present, but the overwhelming impression is just of a good, well-told story in a beautiful Western surrounding. (It was shot on location in Monument Valley).

The film draws on the natural dramatic tension that arises when a disparate group of folks are thrown together in some situation - here, riding together on a stagecoach through dangerous territory. All the lead performances are impressive and add greatly to the production. But John Wayne's performance is simply profound. He had an extensive body of work in B movies, but was not generally known before this film. Stagecoach is said to be the movie that made him a star and you can surely see why. He comes on screen with so much presence and charisma you can't look anywhere else.

Iconic shot:

">