The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966)

Why its here:
My sister-in-law added it to our list. It is not a movie I would have chosen; but it was the least I could do for her :)   so we watched!

Specs:
Hour and a half; color

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I was stunned that this movie was as good as it was. I had very low expectations. haha.  In terms of plot, this film is very much like a Scooby Doo story in live action -- but with a bit more heart. Don Knotts is fantastic. He is very charming, funny and highly sympathetic as a doormat who wants to be a reporter and somehow gets swept in to a "spend the night in a haunted house" type of dare.

Even beyond the indisputable comedy chops of Knotts, this movie can hold its own. It is sweet and clever and well-acted - though simple.

It is also very appropriate for families and likely to be enjoyed by those who don't spend a lot of time in classic cinema. Youngest viewers will probably be scared, though. The chills value may be light by today's standards, but it is still scary and creepy. Make sure you have some blankets to hide under!

Iconic Image:

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (1962)

Why it's here: 
Highly recommended by a friend who brought his son and some snacks over to watch with us! We certainly can't go wrong with that.

Specs: 
2 hours; black and white

Our rating on a scale of 1 - 10: 
8.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film did not disappoint. Remarkable for the onscreen pairing of James Stewart and John Wayne whose talents suit each other remarkably well, this film is yet another of John Ford's successful Westerns and probably one of the best Westerns we've seen. It kept reminding me of the other wonderfully different Westerns in our festival: Stagecoach and High Noon. All three share a similar calm, intellectual story - rather than a high energy "shoot em up" approach.

The film may be best suited for tweens and up -- not because it is gory or violent -- but because it might seem dull or slow for those who don't get in to the underlying personal and political tensions. There are a few graphic and unsettling moments including, I guess I don't give anything away here that the title hasn't already suggested -- a man shot in a gun battle. The interesting piece is not so much that this man was shot but by whom and why and we don't really learn that until we put it all together at the end.

We would recommend the film highly.


Iconic Image:

North by Northwest (1959)

Why it's here:
Another chance to see Cary Grant, here in one of his best known roles, and to show my kids the beyond-iconic moment in cinema when a plane chases down Cary Grant.

Specs:
Over 2 hours, color

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
What struck us most about the film is that it seemed to be recreating "Notorious", yet just wasn't quite as good. Most people to write about this film think it is Hitch's very best work. I'm not a Hitchcock expert, so while I appreciate certain touches in this film enormously and thought that overall it was a really good movie, we weren't blown away.

Even though Cary Grant is the coolest, most appealing character that ever lived on screen, he's starting to seem a bit old for the dashing romantic lead and the age difference between him and Eva Marie Saint is beginning to be too much. His acting is superb and as always he creates the embodiment of something you want to live for and aspire to. He is a golden star - the best that ever lived.

This film contains scenes that would rank among are some of the most incredible in our festival (such as the aforementioned crop duster chasing down Grant, and Grant driving drunk along a windy road, the characters cavorting all over Mt. Rushmore, the scene in the UN where someone gets stabbed with a thrown knife). These elements are profoundly memorable, but somehow, for us, the film as a whole was not. 

Iconic shot:

Auntie Mame (1958)

Why it's here:
Recommended to us by a friend.

Specs:
Almost 2 1/2 hours; color

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

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Auntie Mame was a strange movie. By the end we all really liked it. While we were watching, we couldn't quite figure out what to think of it. It kept seeming like it had come to a close and several times during its run, I thought it had ended. But the story was simply told in chapters or vignettes that each told a piece. It covers an astonishing scope of time in the lives of these people, in good depth. It did feel long, though. And we began to feel that the ending was dragging on. This could be a function of the fact that we had already been tricked into thinkng the film was about to end several times before it actually did.

Throughout the whole is an astonishingly compelling performance by Rosalind Russel (who we had not seen since "His Girl Friday"). She has created a character that is burned in our brains - avant gaurd, lovably out of touch, caring and kind but totally free-spirited, she is the gem of the film.

The movie is at times silly, sad, absurd, frustrating, playful - but always compelling.

On a second viewing, I would probably appreciate it more, knowing how it is set up, what it does and where it's taking me

Iconic image:

Gunfight at the OK Corral (1957)

Why it's here:
The story has been done so many times, but this is the Classic. We were drawn by the strong local interest since the historical events underlying this tale took place near where we live. In addition, the film was shot in part at Old Tucson. We had to check it out.

Specs:
2 hours, color. 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:
Although the film was good, and certainly watchable entertainment, it was not fabulous. The best part was the exposure to the performances of Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster, both major stars who gave top performances here. But the movie dragged on a bit, especially with subplots that pulled away from the main story. Maybe this is because, though clearly one of the most famous tales from the old West, the real Tombstone shoot-out was truly just not that dramatic.  This probably also explains why dramatizations always ratchet up the facts and intensity of the story. Quite a bit.


After watching the film, we went and toured the actual site of the gunfight and learned that the whole battle was short and well contained within a small corral.

The film is full of 50s-era cliches and camp that are charming and enjoyable if you are in the right mind -- for instance, the song "Boot Hill" which has been running through our brains in a continuous loop since. ("Boot Hill, Boot Hill, so cold, so still...") The Boot Hill cemetery in real life is a fascinating and nicely kept monument to the time of the wild West. The Tombstone courthouse holds wonderful exhibits -- including many historical artifacts, displays and period details. It is both architecturally and historically a fantastic place to see. And, the preserved gallows standing in the walled-in courthouse yard still reeks with unpleasant energy.

The actual history of the town is so compelling and as this film marked the impetus for our trip there, and as a well known, quintessential piece of American cultural history, we are grateful to it.
The shot below is so well-framed that I believe it is mandatory to recreate in every subsequent Hollywood release of the story :)

Iconic image:

12 Angry Men (1957)

Why its here:
It had been many years since I've seen this film, but I was pretty sure it would be perfect for our festival. I was right.

Specs:
1 1/2 hours, black and white. Available on dvd

Our rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I can think of few films in our entire festival that had us riveted, literally, on the edge of our seats riveted throughout like 12 Angry Men did.  That statement is all the more remarkable given that the entire film (save the first and last minutes) took place in a single setting -- two, if you count the bathroom of the jury room.  What a remarkable acheivement in drama and performance. Simply incredible.

And those two elements (the actors and their performances) are in fact almost the whole enchilada here. The story itself - from a play about jury deliberations in what appears to be an open and shut murder case is an excellent one. There is almost no action, rather, through the jurors' discussion of the pieces of evidence, the story slowly unfolds along with revelations, interpretations and the disclosure of our jurors' prejudices, strengths of charaacter, backgrounds and vulnerabilities.  However good the story is, the film would be lost without excellent interpretative performances by its entire cast. Henry Fonda is again a standout. I have come to believe that he is one of the best actors of all time. His performances in everything we've seen him in (Grapes of Wrath, Mister Roberts, even The Lady Eve) have never failed to move me.

This is simply a perfect film for the pre-teen/teen set and gives wondrous introduction into the legal system as well as a grand study into character and duty.  Not to be missed.

Iconic image:

Around the World in 80 Days (1956)

Why it's here:
Actually we'd seen the Jackie Chan version and loved it. It made sense to view the original film from the 50s.

Specs:
Nearly 3 hours, color; available on dvd

Our family's average rating:
7.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
As I sit here writing this, the rest of my family is watching the Jackie Chan version (again). They wanted to compare the two. While both are star-studded with cameos and give a wonderful feel of world travel and adventure and contain roughly equivalent overall entertainment value, one thing's for sure: Chan's version is much more hilarious... and juvenile.

We all really liked them both. But the 1956 one, is much more like a grand adventure story, that is also funny, than the rip roaring silliness of the more recent one. The 1956 film takes on the story with a bit more intention and seriousness. Though still light and fun, it feels like "real" cinema. In fact, it feels very much like cinema for grown-ups: an impressive and lengthy production with incredible world travel and sweeping production values.

Shot on location all around the globe, the film usually inspires gushing about the wide screen format employed -- which seems to be the technological equivalent of The Hobbit's recent foray into superfast frames per second -- that is, on a nerdo-scale of excitability. But, since all the movies we watch just basically just fill up my tv set, the insanely-wide screen dimension had little effect on us. What we did love was the feeling of a book brought to life with great lushness and attention to detail.

The kids were thrilled and we were all surprise to see Buster Keaton pop up in a cameo as a train conductor. He was, as always, fabulous. There were so many celebrity cameos, its hard to know which to point out. Some of the more impressive (to me), besides Keaton, were Marlene Dietrich, Frank Sinatra, Red Skelton, and Peter Lorre, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

This was great fun - but families should be warned it is long and probably not the best choice for those who are new to classic cinema.

Iconic image:

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Why it's here:
To sample something by the great director Cecil B De Mille.

Specs:
Over 3 1/2 hours long! (we watched over two nights). Color and available on dvd.
Set in biblical times; at the time of Moses.

Our family's average rating:
8.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Wow. Just wow. This has so much enormity and spectacle value that it is breathtaking to watch.

I can see why Cecil B. DeMille was such an icon. He knew how to make a BIG movie. He so clearly understood what details are important. He has assembled a magnificent and deep cast. His special effects are excellent and, even by today's standards, don't look cheesy but seamless and impressive. His locations (some in Egypt, some in California) are gorgeous and evocative.

Everything feels sweeping, grand and important -- including his choice to film this story.  He follows the life of Moses from the time he was set upon the Nile in a basket, to his status as an Egyptian leader, to his calling from God to lead his people out of slavery. The story is an incredible one and this an amazingly solid adaptation of it that stands up well today.

Iconic image:

Mister Roberts (1955)

Why it's here:
Henry Fonda, William Powell, James Cagney (who we've seen and enjoyed separately) and a chance to introduce the kids to Jack Lemmon. What an impressive cast!

Specs:
About 2 hours, black and white. Available on dvd.

Our family's average rating:
8.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
My family's reaction to the film was that this wasn't exactly full-on comedy, nor was it really war drama, but it was a perfect mix of the two. We laughed a lot throughout, but the film is much deeper than it is silly. We gained incredible insight into the emotions and conditions of men on a boat in WWII.

The film resonated a good deal with us because the boys' grandfather had been at Pearl Harbor and must have lived the experiences of the navy in the era as portrayed in this film.

The performances by all the leads are incredible. As always, we adore William Powell. He is my favorite character here as a dignified, clever, but basically warm-hearted doctor. James Cagney is wonderful as the horrible (and still hilarious) captain Morton. Henry Fonda has to be at the very top of the list of all the actors we've seen during our festival in terms of sheer acting skill. We saw this film weeks ago, and as I sit writing this, I still feel attached to the man he played here. Fonda makes Mr. Roberts incredibly real.

Finally, this was our introduction to Jack Lemmon and a great one at that. Lemmon plays a slightly inept, but extremely energetic and randy young man.  A parent's note: a few of the scenes, especially those involving Lemmon's character, are a bit risque in theme. One scene in the beginning has the sailors using binoculars to watch when they discover that a nurses barracks and shower is viewable from where they are anchored. Although that scene may make the film objectionable for some families, the sexuality doesn't get any more involved than that. There is a fair amount of suggestive innuendo about Lemmon's pursuit of a particular nurse, but overall, this makes a small part of the film, is not too lascivious, and simply adds to the light humor.

The film is exceptionally well-made and does a magnificent job of setting a mood and creating memorable characters. We absolutely loved it.

Iconic image:

On The Waterfront (1954)

Why it's here:
Marlon Brando. That's enough of a reason, right?

Specs:
Not quite 2 hours long, black and white. It is available on dvd which we found at our library.

Our family's average rating:
8.0

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I really struggled with whether to show this one to my kids. In fact, I pre-viewed it just to see. The content is quite intense and unsettling, but the movie is powerful and exceptionally good, so I gave them some warnings and we watched.

To start with the reason for having included this film in our festival: Marlon Brando is an amazing actor. We were all very moved by his performance. Brando, as everyone knows, is famous as a proponent of a new style of acting - the method - that started to take hold in the 50s. I don't really know (or care) that much about acting theory, but I will say that his style of performance was clearly different -- earthier, more emotional, earnest, and real -- than the classic Hollywood style we have become used to. It takes the viewer by force in this film. Two instances that make my heart still thump include the iconic "I could have been a contender" scene with his brother in the car and a simple moment when, walking through a park with Eva Marie Saint, he stoops to pick up a glove she's dropped, fingers it absentmindedly, then puts it on his own hand. These moments are incredible and beautiful, as is his whole performance.

Now, for the ugly, because the film depicts something very ugly -- the mob-controlled union on the dockyards in New Jersey. The film (like High Noon) is all about characters making hard choices and is steeped in allegory about the ongoing red scare and its effect on Hollywood. You don't have to care about symbolic meaning to appreciate the film.

Parents should be aware that, though gritty and upsetting in theme, there is not a great deal of violence or gore actually shown on screen; plenty is implied though. Several deaths do occur (just offscreen) and they are fairly grusome (someone is thrown from a roof, another has a heavy load of bottles dropped on him, another is shot and then suspended from a hook). Though the deaths may not be seen directly, their aftermath is. All of this would elevate the film to a PG-13. Though my 11 year old watched and really liked the film, I would not generally recommend it for 11 year olds. It is probably best suited to the 13+ set.  ...and that's not just because of the violence, but for the fact that most kids under 13+ probably wouldn't be that interested in the grown-up themes of unions, and mob power, what it means to rat people out and when its OK to do that.

One of the best parts of the film was the awesome character and performance of the waterfront priest played by Karl Malden. He really helped you feel like you had an anchor in all the tension going on and was occassionally funny and uniformly charming. Likewise, Eva Marie Saint was an awesome grounding force in the film that I was very grateful for.

We recommend this film highly for slightly older or more mature kids and teens.

Iconic image:

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: