Three Films

There are a ton of Hallmark Channel films and even more films like that during the Christmas season. 

Time For Them To Come Home For Christmas has an intriguing plot about a woman who loses her memory. Jessy Schram, a familiar face, also was in it. So, when it was on one morning -- holiday films are on all day on multiple channels -- I DVR-ed. 

I enjoyed it. The film has some mystery and earned pathos. The love interest turns out to have a burden he has to bear that is somewhat more serious than you might expect. Their road trip has a few interesting stops, including a cameo of another familiar Hallmark actress. The ending is satisfying.  

Jessy Schram is the best thing in the film. The actor is decent too. A film with a similar title also was enjoyable -- I watched it multiple times.  

The Prince and the Showgirl is summarized in a review book as Laurence Olivier (the prince) romancing Marilyn Monroe (the showgirl). This is somewhat misleading. The film has more weight than expected. I liked it overall.  

Monroe bought the rights to the story. Olivier co-starred and directed. She reportedly was some trouble during the production. This was during the later years of her career when she had fewer films and more personal problems. My Week With Marilyn (in the queue to watch) portrays the production.  

The prince regent expects to have a pleasant "dinner" with the showgirl (an American in Britain) but she is more self-aware than expected. He plans to cut his losses but she keeps on hanging around. 

In the end, she turns his offer to return with him down. She also gets involved with politics, including after she overhears something in German, that she speaks. Monroe does well with a complex performance. 

The film mixes romance, satire, and travelogue. It takes place in 1911, which adds an edge to the whole thing, especially when the British want to keep the Balkan country he is from happy. 

Hotel Berlin is from the same author as the famous Greta Garbo film Grand Hotel. This story takes place during the final days of Nazi Germany. The film was released in early 1945 before the war was over.

I liked the film. The DVD was glitched so I could not see the whole thing. Nonethless, the story kept my interest and there were various interesting characters. 

Some of the actors were also familiar including another role for Peter Lorre and Raymond Massey, who played various dramatic roles, including Abraham Lincoln. He played a proper German general who was part of the plan to assassinate Hitler. He could not realize his time was up. 

The storyline had many German characters with dubious goings on. The central story involved an escapee from the Dachau concentration camp. He was able to escape though some drama was mixed in until the end there too. So the plot summary tells me. 

Some reviews apparently were annoyed the film treated certain German characters sympathetically. Such is the path to a good drama. The book was written in the middle of the war. It is somewhat different when things are occurring c. 1945.  

(The assassination plot took place in 1944.) 

Vicki Baum, the author, was a Jewish German refugee. She wrote several books and screenplays. I will check one or more out. If they are of interest, as with the Marilyn film, I will say more.  

Two Books

This book has potential, and its success as a first effort is not surprising. Overall, though the writing was readable and had some nice touches, I was not satisfied. The final conflict was annoying.  

There is a lot of interlocking stuff here. The author "writes what she knows" because she is a Peruvian-American who moved from the South to New York City. And, that is what her main character does. 

The two love interests also write a book together, which is clearly a sort of roman-a-clef of their relationship. In fact, it is darn obvious, and you would think the other characters would say more about that. She's a doe-eyed romantic while he doesn't like romance and favors darker literary fiction.  

They fall in love.  

Katie Holt nicely includes bits and pieces of their work in progress, which helpfully provides insights into what the male side of the love match is thinking. The excerpts are well done and make you want to read the book being written.  

The book is fully otherwise from the woman's point of view, someone who relies too much on true-life romance to succeed in writing. The sex scenes are a bit much at times but expertly done. The romance overall was not satisfying and well-rounded though perhaps some will like it as a fantasy. 

Ultimately, a major problem is that the main character seems immature, and the male character is more fantasy than a complete well-rounded character. The writing of the book sputters (she just stops working with him, not even reading the finale before they submit it) after a stupid complication arises that makes her love interest and advisor/mentor both look bad.

I read the whole thing and it kept my interest. Nonetheless, the main characters eventually got to be somewhat annoying, and the ending complication annoyed me. And, the idea was that they would not just write a "happily ever after," and it sounds like they did. A cheat! 

Why didn't the instructor, who set the guidelines, find this a problem? The whole thing comes off somewhat incomplete. Again, an imperfect first effort.  

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir was a book, film, and television series. Each version was somewhat different from the last one taking place in America in the modern day and tossed in an "&." It is a sitcom.

Josephine Leslie wrote the book in her forties and it appears to be her first. The Wikipedia entry on her is a short "stub" though online you can find a picture. An essay on the different houses used provides a bit more information. "R.A. Dick" is a pseudonym. 

The book edition I have is a special version connected to the film with a short introduction largely focused on the movie version. The book title pages references three other books by "R.A. Dick," including one that Amazon tells me is about the devil.

I read the book before and saw the film and television series (a bit silly). The book and the film are alike in various ways though the ending changes as I recall (I won't confirm -- I plan to watch the film again) and the annoying son is dropped out. Various other bits are changed. Overall, the film works quite well. 

The book is pretty good too. It has some interesting ideas of the afterlife and the captain also has some interesting things to say. Mrs. Muir is a bit too weak-willed at times, with the captain firmly in control (he is older and dead, which provides him the ability to know things she cannot). Still, she comes off as a pleasant character with independent views.

The setting of the book (written in the 1940s) is a bit vague though there are references to trains, phones, and radio (suggested perhaps not present early on). It can be many times in the past, Lucy Muir (a word meaning "sea") finding happiness in an isolated home near the sea. The taste of the modern era is there.  

There should be at least one world war mixed in there, which the captain at least would seem to find notable. None is referenced though perhaps it's possible to fit the main portion of the book before WWI.  A war would challenge the book's mood. 

The book has a somewhat old-fashioned feel with a pleasant overall pace from when she is first a widow and before you know it her children are adults, and then she is an old lady. All in less than two hundred pages. Those who like the film should enjoy it.

The passing of time is a suitable theme as we finish another year. I personally did not find this year too pleasing, symbolized by my sleeping through its beginning. We shall see how 2025 goes. The year does have a mathematical simplicity to it.  

SCOTUS Watch

The Supreme Court continues to do some notable things as they go into a mini-recess. Of sorts. 

Order List 

The final conference of the year led to two grants and a non-descript order list on the following Monday. The Supreme Court separately amended a grant to specify that they were not concerned with the second question submitted for review.

In the Order List, Thomas publicly said (without comment) that he would take an issue involving the EPA. Alito did not take part in a case without saying why. Only the liberals explain their non-involvement.

Other Orders 

The justices without comment denied an "application to recall and stay the mandate" involving a habeas claim. The lower court (citing the petition) "held that a new expert report based on a previously available claim can restart the clock for filing a habeas petition that is otherwise untimely by years."  

The Supreme Court provided accelerated oral argument (January 10) in the TikTok case. Steve Vladeck supported the move with the law going into effect on January 19th. 

I bow to his knowledge but note that the Court can speed things along if it wants to do so. Cf. Trump cases. Also, will this be the current S.G.'s swan song?

(A media advisory is a red flag that there promises to be some extra call for seats for the TikTok orals.) 

The Supreme Court also granted a case involving Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. A quite different solicitor general will handle that one. 

Broadway Debut

Some coverage of Justice Jackson's Broadway debut including some behind-the-scenes video. She is not the first person who popped up on screen like this. 

Justice Sotomayor was on an episode of Sesame Street. Justice Blackmun waited until he was retired for a cameo in Amistad, playing someone a couple decades younger than him. Breyer replaced Blackmun on the Court and Jackson replaced Breyer.  

Lower Courts  

President nominated Adeel A. Mangi as a court of appeals judge and he would have been the first Muslim in that role. He was blocked for bullshit reasons with three Democrats going along with all the Republicans. Mangi used a letter to President Biden to make some parting shots, providing receipts. 

This was a sad day for America, including for religious liberty. I cited the letter on a blog, and someone responded with a bunch of invective. 

The letter provides multiple refutations. Chris Geidner has more. 

A lower court judge was flagged (since they have binding ethics) for criticizing Alito. Another (James Ho, who surely seems like he is pining for a seat on SCOTUS even if a supporter denies it) can spout partisan cant willy-nilly though. 

The new budget increases money provided to defend justices' safety. Perhaps, a quid pro quo requiring more ethics in return would be justified.  

Film and TV

The Svengoolie film was an amusingly silly and generally well-paced film from 1960 (Dinosaurus!) about two dinosaurs and a caveman coming back to life. Toss in a cute kid, a stereotypically bad baddie, and some stock characters (the semi-love interest has the most flavor), and you have a fun drive-in type film. The caveman comes off as the most interesting character! (The actor also has the most credits.) 

An engineering team is doing some work on a Caribbean island and finds two dinosaurs in the ocean. A caveman pops up too and all are brought back to life with some lightening. Forget about the dinosaur. The whole thing works out fairly well special effects-wise.

The final battle seems a bit tacked on. Why does the T-Rex go to the outpost where they are planning to stage a last stand?  Do they lure it there in cut footage? The caveman dies saving others and the gentle dino is attacked by the T-Rex and sinks in some quicksand. 

Torrey DeVito is the lead in Write Before Christmas (ah a pun), a Hallmark Channel film that successfully (overall) tries something a bit different. She breaks up with her boyfriend and sends the five cards she planned to send to her to people she cares about. And, we see various subplots involving them too. 

Various familiar faces. The actress has been in a few t.v. shows including Chicago Med, which I checked out (the library didn't have the first two series, so I checked out the third). Didn't interest me.  

The Native American-related book recently referenced cited something a character on the television show Longmire said.  Longmire is a Western crime drama. 

I thought the first episode was well done. The acting and setting kept my interest. Nonetheless, yes I have a low threshold these days, a few things bothered me. It has various stereotypes that annoy me.  

For instance, you have a big city detective working for the sheriff's office and she is surprised by basic tactics about interviewing people without showing all your cards. He has a sense of honor that involves basic things that make him supposedly special. 

His daughter secretly dates (or has sex with) his deputy. Come on. He personally goes alone to dangerous places, setting himself to be shot in the very first episode. Tiresome. I know the drill. I liked The Closer though it has various limitations. 

It still annoys me. You cannot just have a simple murder mystery. Two shows in. Everything has to be fraught. I'm not in the mood for it.  Also, so much killing after a while gets a bit much. I will try to find a series to delve into elsewhere.  

I guess I'll just take it as a one-off though the female deputy and maybe his daughter have some potential. 

Petticoat Junction

Two episodes of Petticoat Junction on MeTV are part of my Saturday television regime. I have a series of shows and films (e.g., Hallmark Channel at 8 P.M.) to check on. Petticoat Junction is on 5 A.M.

If you re-watch and re-read, you pick up things. I see this on Friends, which is syndicated on multiple channels, at times in bunches. Scripts have continuity errors. Certain things don't make much sense.*

Let's put aside that two of the sisters changed actresses. The brunette was played by two actresses and the blonde by three. And, other than being the daughter of a creator of the show, the third being a red-head seems off. How does that work genetically?  

The more notable thing is that the actress who plays the mom, a central role in the show, died mid-series. They then took her out of the theme song and except for once (a brief reference) never talked about her again. She was "away" while being sick. She came back, died off-screen, and then Orwellian-like, it was like she was never there.  

I understand this given the desire not to make a light television show too dark though seems like it would have been okay to reference her death. Did fans like them doing it that way? 

The mom was central to running the hotel, especially her cooking skills. Uncle Joe clearly was not too useful. The oldest daughter eventually was away regularly doing her music career. 

We occasionally see evidence the daughters are cleaning up or the like. One thing rarely shown from what I can tell is their eating together. 

I saw a late-season Thanksgiving episode. Who made the dinner? The youngest originally was a lousy cook. She eventually got better after she got married. The others showed some ability to cook. Did they share cooking duties for guests? 

I'm not overly concerned. It is just something that came to mind and made me go "Hmm."

===

* Friends is comfortable watching that can be enjoyed over and over again. I still have various issues with the series. I also think the series kicked into gear mid-second season and dropped off mid-ninth.  

I can go on and on here but I'll just cite one thing. There was one episode where a pregnant Rachel was really horny. Okay. So have sex. It was a thing earlier that she repeatedly had sex on the first date. 

Is there some rule about pregnant people not being able to have sex? She was about four months along and not huge or anything. She's Rachel. People a lot less hot have sex late in the pregnancy.  

She was horrified when Phoebe brought some virgin nebbish over to satisfy her. The show has multiple conservative moments like that including ...

Rachel goes on a date early in her pregnancy and for some reason finds it necessary to tell the guy she's pregnant. It was a first date with a soap opera star. Why the need to be so honest and ruin things? 

She later notes that while pregnant she can't date. This flows into a charming subplot involving Joey. All the same, why not? She's Rachel. People will still date her while she is pregnant!  

Thinking about such things is one of the fun things about re-watching and re-reading. It also remains annoying. People can do the same thing with some Jane Austen novel or something too.  

Jane Austen's Unpublished Novels (and More)

I re-read these novels (two unfinished) which were unpublished in Jane Austen's lifetime. I am not a Janeite as such though have consumed much Austen content over the years. I talked about Austen in the past, including watching (and reading) The Jane Austen's Book Club, and reading multiple biographies. 

Jane Austen wrote from her teens to her death in her early 40s. She was from a family of eight (six brothers and one sister), notable for (except for her) generally for long life spans. Her teen writings are called "Juvenalia" and are basically parodies. 

There are then her adult works, three of which were written in an early form in the 1790s.  

Novels

• Sense and Sensibility (1811)
• Pride and Prejudice (1813)
• Mansfield Park (1814)
• Emma (1815)
• Northanger Abbey (1818) (posthumous)
• Persuasion (1818) (posthumous)

Short fiction

• Lady Susan (1794, 1805)

Unfinished fiction

• The Watsons (1804)
• Sanditon (1817)

Northanger Abbey was first written years earlier, sold but not published, and eventually bought back.  It is a satire of overheated Gothic novels with the teen heroine having an overactive imagination.  I think it is a flawed first novel, having somewhat of a feel of a first draft, a sort of bridge from her juvenalia.   

Sense and Sensibility was first written in the form of an epistolatory (letters) novel, which was common at that time. Lady Susan is an epistolatory novel concerning a wicked thirty-something widow. It is rather fun and I wish she wrote it later as a normal novel. But, she would never have such a character dominate in her adult years.   

The Watsons is a short fragment of an unfinished novel. The fragment consists of a few scenes related to a dance and the home life of the heroine. 

She wrote it while in Bath, an unpleasant portion of her life away from her preferred country life. Her father also died during the time she wrote it.  The characters remind me of others, including an invalid father (Emma). It's an easy reading few scenes though I'm unsure how substantial the whole book would be. 

Pride and Prejudice is a favorite novel of many. Fanny of Mansfield Park is somewhat insufferable though Jane Austen has a personal attachment. Ironically, Fanny is upset at other characters performing a play -- Jane Austen's family amused themselves by acting out plays when she was growing up (sometimes material of her own creation).

Emma is the second book in Jane Austen's prime that is quite popular. The teen comedy Clueless is a loose translation. Multiple Jane Austen films inspired modern-day take-offs ala Shakespeare in many cases.

Austen started Sanditon (now a t.v. series) shortly before her death. Nonetheless, I found Persuasion somewhat rough. It is shorter than her other adult novels, and I wonder if she was satisfied with the final result. It was published after her death.  

Sanditon has a somewhat strange feel for a Jane Austen novel. Reviewers note its novel components, including her use of satire of a health resort. The fragment largely consists of caricatures, including three hypochondriacs and an excessively enthusiastic business owner. It would have been interesting to see the complete novel. 

The three novels here are a good way to read Jane Austen in small doses. I read all of her published novels. I tried to re-read them but could not get into the flow of things. Many people re-read them multiple times. Maybe, I will try Persuasion, which is the shortest of her adult novels. 

To toss it in, Austentatious is worthwhile to try short-lived television series using multiple Jane Austen characters in a modern-day context. Not to be confused with a play based on the works of Jane Austen, which sounds good, but I never saw it.  

The Abominable Dr. Phibes

This week's Svengoolie is a 1970s film starring Vincent Price. At various points, it appears to be an acid trip. 

The film involves Price gaining revenge on the people who could not save his wife. He decides to use the plagues of Egypt (somewhat altered; there were no rats or bats in the original version) with the help of a silent lovely young assistant. A lot of killing is done largely tongue-in-cheek.

The cast includes some familiar faces, particularly Joseph Cotton, who starred in many familiar films (including The Farmer's Daughter) back in the day. He looks tired here (he was in his mid-60s) though partially that is the nature of the character.  Cotton is basically the "final girl" here. 

Dr. Phibes did not get around to killing Cotton's character though put the scare in him by kidnapping his son. Nonetheless, he accomplished the rest of his revenge before returning to the grave. At least, the film ends with him lying next to his wife, replacing his blood with embalming fluid.

But, he will turn. For that, see the next episode.  This one was pretty fun, especially if you like the absurdity of it all. The Sven episode included an honorary video celebrating his 45th year in the role.  

TV: Time Marches On

I came upon an episode of Wizards Beyond Waverly Place. 

The original ended twelve years ago. Justin returns in a leading role with various family members having guest appearances. Alex (Selena Gomez) pops up in the first episode. The series starts with him being 34, the same age as the actor. Time flies. 

I liked the original after it got going with a subplot with a vampire family (the daughter later becomes another character in Good Luck Charlie; the actress is Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's -- yes that one -- niece). 

The first episode of this series was a bit forced, but the other took a while to get into a groove. 

I saw Emily Osment on After Midnight. She did the comedy panel stuff well enough though did come in third per the somewhat arbitrary point system.  

Emily had a guest appearance on Friends in a Halloween episode as a cute trick-and-treater with a long name. She was best known by some as "Lily" on Hannah Montana, which is about as long ago as Wizards. She was also in many other things, including a serious role (with a downer ending) on Mom.

She is all grown up and on a sequel to a prequel of Big Bang Theory. The show is on so much on syndication (seems less so of late) so I caught it from time to time. That show ended in 2019 though the second prequel starts in real time in 1994.  

I have only watched a tiny bit of the prequel, which had a good run. In the latest, she plays an older woman who marries the older brother (who is around 18). The "first marriage" in the title is quite true according to Big Bang Theory, which once noted he married and divorced twice.  

Hallmark Channel is the place to really feel old. A variety of old television actors from at least back to the 1970s have been in films over the years. 

The early morning duo of Petticoat Junction episodes on MeTV included the "last" episode of the sixth season and the first episode of the seventh. 

The curious nature of the season finale is that the mom is still in the opening credits even though the actress had died earlier in the season (they never address it except by cutting her out of the credits). 

Wikipedia explains the episode was pre-empted and time-wise (as shown by the youngest daughter still being pregnant) fit in near the beginning of the season. They sort of overdo that baby bump. 

The other surprise is that the black actor [who is light-skinned] who replaced the season regular on Hogan's Heroes pops up in a guest appearance. The actor is the one surviving character from the main cast. He guest-starred before serving in that late-season role.  

(The Russian spy who guest starred in some episodes is still alive too per Wikipedia.) 

Was there another black actor on the show?!  

A Golden Life and The Christmas Charade

As a child, I did not read much fiction. I did not read the usual books children read. We were not given lots of books to read like some. For instance, my niece's child has a mini-library. I persisted anyhow.  

I still do not read much fiction. I do from time to time find some books to enjoy. Once, there was a Jane Austen period. I read each of her books, including Lady Susan and the two unfinished novels. Checked out multiple biographies and a collection of her letters. Did not read all of her Juvenalia, which is a collection of her works as a child and teen.  

Modern fiction also from time to time appeals. I enjoyed a few mystery writers, including the early works of Sue Grafton. The latest was a book I found by chance while looking for something to read at the library, after it looked like nothing caught my eye.

Frances is in her mid-20s and is starting as a secretary in 1930s Hollywood. She has a secret. Meanwhile, her boss, a big producer, is working on adapting the story of a famous 19th-century actress to the screen. 

The real deal opposes the idea, leading to a trip, and further complications, including the actress who is determined to play her to show she can do more than play innocents. Toss in such drama as his teenage daughter. It all blends together nicely.

The book might make a good film. One good aspect is some well-drawn supporting characters, which are essential in a good film. 

It isn't Halloween yet, but yes, the Christmas season is upon us. I saw Christmas decorations at the discount store. And, there are a bunch of Christmas films on multiple Hallmark Channels and Up TV. 

There are so many of these films. Sometimes, I like the feel of them with some of the stars a better bet. Corey Sevier is a familiar face, including on both channels. He was in an enjoyable film last night. He also directed it. Checking, he directed a few films.  

He plays a gruff FBI agent who accidentally has to work with a librarian. She too was in a few Hallmark films. She has less of a somewhat fake feeling flavor than some of these regulars.  

The film is well-paced and is focused more on mystery than romance. The necessary complication comes late and is disposed of painlessly. 

There have been one or more Halloween films on Hallmark, including one with a ghost. Do not know if they have any new films for Election Day though a few films have election-related plots.

A few familiar faces are in the cute Mayor Cupcake, which was made in 2011, but check it out if you can. 

The Lovers and the Supreme Court

I re-watched The Lovers, after reading something about Justice Stewart's famous "I know it when I see it" line about obscenity. 

Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) involved a crime arising from possessing and exhibiting the film:

Jacobellis, manager of a motion picture theater in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, was convicted on two counts of possessing and exhibiting an obscene film in violation of Ohio Revised Code (1963 Supp.), § 2905.34.1 He was fined $500 on the first count and $2,000 on the second, and was sentenced to the workhouse if the fines were not paid.

I talked about this film and case around ten years ago (tempus fugit and all that). Justice Stewart's famous line came after he mentioned in a separate opinion that he thought only "hardcore pornography" could be criminalized under First Amendment principles. He drops a "cf" footnote, citing a New York opinion. Stewart clarifies:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

I noted last time that Stewart, perhaps being concerned about the response to his statement even back then, later added clarity on the sort of material he meant. I question how much he added by doing so.* 

Doctrinal tests are going to be unclear. What does "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean? Sometimes, the situation is very clear. A person is so clearly guilty (or innocent) that few would disagree. 

And, The Lovers, a French film, fits the bill. It's a serious art film by Louis Malle (he later made some English language films, including Vanya on 42nd Street). It is beautifully shot in black and white. 

The whole "obscene" portion is a late montage, which in total is around three minutes, and has the level of "nudity" that now could be shown on broadcast television.  People might be bored with the whole thing, wondering when the "dirty" parts will come. 

The bored, unhappy wife had an adulterous affair beforehand (no sex) but the Supreme Court had in the 1950s said that is okay.  Almost out of the blue, she and a third man fall in love. Before then, the film is basically talk, and after a while is somewhat boring.

This leads to the final reel. The bored, unhappy wife is suddenly smitten and enamored. The guy rather quickly fell in love with her as well. I will toss in that the wife is the narrator of the film though you have to listen closely since it is spoken in the third person. 

Their love is so strong that after a night together, she leaves her husband and young daughter. The day ends the love daze a tad but the film quickly ends so there is not much time to linger. It is a tad silly. 

Three justices would have upheld the conviction. Chief Justice Warren (with Clark) emphasized that the "use" of a film can help decide the question. For instance, the marketing of this film spoke about how "daring" and "frank" it was. Other than that, they said the state court reasonably applied the current test. 

Harlan, who overall gave states more discretion when the Bill of Rights was involved, argued:

As to the States, I would make the federal test one of rationality. I would not prohibit them from banning any material which, taken as a whole, has been reasonably found in state judicial proceedings to treat with sex in a fundamentally offensive manner under rationally established criteria for judging such material.

On this basis, having viewed the motion picture in question, I think the State acted within permissible limits in condemning the film, and would affirm the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court.

Justice White concurred without opinion. Black and Douglas concurred with their usual absolutist views on obscenity.  Justice Goldberg concurs to emphasize how silly it is to call this obscene:

I have viewed the film, and I wish merely to add to my Brother BRENNAN's description that the love scene deemed objectionable is so fragmentary and fleeting that only a censor's alert would make an audience conscious that something "questionable" is being portrayed. 

The earlier cases spoke of "material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest," which did not have "redeeming social importance." The material had to be judged "as a whole." 

Pandering eventually was clearly something that could cause problems though simply penalizing someone for normal puffery of this sort is a tad absurd. At most, pandering would cause problems in close cases. This film is not close. The three dissenters do not spell out what is so "offensive" about the film itself as compared to many other works. 

My "Criterion Collection" DVD copy (NYPL) had a little booklet with a film essay. The essay notes the striking thing at the time for "conservative" France was the "frank" themes, especially adultery without apology. It also explains the opening credits with a sexy "map" that represents the way to love. 

One other thing that stands out is that Jeanne Moreau does not totally shave her armpits. I am left with the understanding that this was simply the style for French beauty in the late 1950s. 

Again, it is simply silly to call a serious art film that has one risque montage (with some sex and nudity implied and a couple quick flashes that amount to "side boob" which is less prurient than some cleavage shots in other films) "obscene." 

The term roughly means a dirty movie. This is not even much of an "erotic" film. The favorite Stewart quip should not let us avoid the basics -- sometimes the answer is obvious. I put aside my opinion that obscenity is a very dubious exception.

As for the film, it gets a bit tedious after a while. Most of the characters are boring and purposely gauche. Jeanne Moreau is beautiful. Her love interest has a basic normalcy and is more a symbol than a real character. Moreau is the reason to see this film. 

The film is quick enough that you shouldn't be too bored. It's beautiful to look at. And, it has the added value of that special Supreme Court connection. 

ETA: I caught the opening of the season premiere of SNL. It was a not very good political bit that dragged on and on with a tiresome dig at senior moment Biden (played by Dana Carvey). 

===

* The later opinion by Stewart (his also quotable dissent in Ginzburg v. U.S.) is never referenced (perhaps except in extended law reviews), probably because it would ruin the moment. 

The ultimate irony is that he argues there is a class of "hardcore" pornography in which the criteria of obscenity are so clear that it is acceptable to prosecute consenting  adults under the First Amendment:

There does exist a distinct and easily identifiable class of material in which all of these elements coalesce.

Not that I know of any case, including one where Brennan was willing to uphold a prosecution, where he found that. Luckily for him, as he suggests, they would be subject to plea deals and not appealed. 

What's Next

The title tells the tale. I watched and enjoyed the series. Like the Gilmore Girls, it was also a fantasy of sorts during the Bush Administration.  

(The authors repeatedly speak of fans as Wingnuts without addressing the negative term "wingnuts.")

The co-authors are very gung-ho about how special the series and the people involved were. Don't expect much "dirt" here. Their positivity gets a bit much after a while though a lot of it is earned. 

There are many quotes from the cast and crew, including how they gave back. "Service" is an important theme, especially since both co-authors are deeply involved, focusing on veteran issues. We learn the causes of lots of people.

Melissa Fitzgerald is involved in "treatment courts." McCormack is also the sister of a former state judge, eventually the Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. The gang got back together to promote her candidacy.  Multiple West Wing cast members have been involved in political campaigns up until today.  

Rob Lowe seems to be a bit of a blip here, perhaps given his desire to leave the show (the nerve!), though he did come back at the very end. He contributed if not as much as some other cast members.  

One person is basically forgotten -- she gets a single reference (plus a call list photo with her name on it) -- Moira Kelly. She was originally a main cast member (Donna, who might just be my favorite, originally was not) but her role petered out by mid-first season. 

An ensemble show with so many people is bound to result in some slippage. Still, it would have been nice if she got at least a bit more mention. 

The book -- over 550 pages long if quick reading with large margins -- is not meant to cover it all. People like John Laroquette are not mentioned. Still. Original main cast member. I think she deserved more than a passing mention. 

The authors love Martin Sheen. He is said to be a great guy, both personally and in his willingness to walk the talk (so to speak) regarding his liberal Catholic views. Lots of service in his life.

What's Next provides an optimistic and evangelical view of the power of the individual and government. Some people make fun of the West Wing as a fantasy. The makers of the show grant it is "too good to be true" but it is a window into what is possible.

And, many people in the government were and are inspired by the show. People cited include members of the Biden Administration and the Supreme Court (Justice Kagan was then a law professor). 

Drama is often not meant to be merely true to life. Dramatic license and all that. West Wing does have a lesson or two to teach us. 

Finally, I do think a show about the Supreme Court is possible. Two series, one a very short-lived Sally Fields version, and a second one with other familiar faces (even less realistic), didn't work out. Still, with so many platforms out there, why not? 

"What's Next" by the way is from the show. The show is famous for everyone always being on the move. Busy busy. Once one thing is dealt with, there is always something else. As the president constantly says, "What's next?"  

True enough. Time marches on. 

SCOTUS Watch

Order Watch  

The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.

The final scheduled summer order list is coming up and there are five executions later this month. Meanwhile, other SCOTUS actions.

The first miscellaneous order concerns an attempt to delay prison time, appealing to a 1/6 related case. The crime:

Applicant, a former assistant inspector general and contracting official in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 1519 by, among other things, omitting from his annual financial disclosure forms $80,000 in loans that he had received.

No dice and no comment. Of more note:

The Supreme Court has rejected Oklahoma's attempt to claw back millions in Title X family planning funds that it lost because it refused to comply with program rules requiring clinics to offer information about abortion to patients who request it.

Oklahoma sued the administration in 2023 after it lost roughly $4.5 million in annual Title X funds for refusing to comply with the abortion counseling and referral requirements. The lower court rejected the claim. Litigation continues, underlining abortion lawsuits will not end after Dobbs. 

The Biden Administration offered to let them merely offer patients a national hotline number to obtain information about making an abortion appointment out of state. The state said "Nope."

The Biden administration redistributed the funding that had been going to Oklahoma’s health department to two independent providers who have agreed to abide by the abortion referral requirements.

This time, though there were no explanations, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch publicly dissented. 

Books 

Someone recommended a 1960s book entitled A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed, which discusses Justice Pierce Butler. Justice Butler is the least talked about of the four conservatives nicknamed the Four Horsemen (of the Apocalypse) during the New Deal.  

(Here's a law article on Butler that argues he is worthy of somewhat more attention.) 

They had liberal moments, including Justice McReynolds writing Meyer v. Nebraska and some well-known civil liberty rulings of George Sutherland. Pierce Butler dissented in the Olmstead (wiretapping) and Buck v. Bell (eugenics) cases too. Van Devanter wrote the least though he was around the longest. His forte was more behind the scenes. 

The book is a mostly engaging discussion of the ins and outs of Butler's appointment. The last quarter of the book had some chapters that were written in academic-ese. Academics should be able to discuss such matters without causing eyes to glaze over.

Meanwhile, Justice Jackson's autobiography (she has a co-author, who she thanks but does not get a co-writing credit) is out. I have it on reserve. 

She is doing interviews, including noting that she is okay with a binding ethics rule for SCOTUS. She was on Colbert* as was her old boss (Justice Breyer) earlier to promote his latest book (rather dull). Years back, in a rather nifty seven or so minutes, Justice John Paul Stevens was a guest on the Colbert Report.  

In one interview, she was interviewed with her husband, who noted he always knew that she would be on the Supreme Court. He got a bit teary. Definite "awww" moment. 

Sotomayor has multiple books. She now has a musical, which is based on one of her books for children. The musical has adults portraying children, discussing growing up with different disabilities. 

Did any talk about watching Sotomayor on Sesame Street? Barrett and Kavanaugh's books are pending. 

==

* Airing tonight. 

ETA: Colbert referenced early that a justice will not discuss certain matters. It would have been helpful for Jackson to briefly explain why.

Jackson briefly explained her dissent in the Trump immunity case. She has decided this would be one of the things she could talk about.

Colbert noted the practice of dissenting from the bench. Jackson explained it was a way to express your strong feelings about a case. 

She dissented from the bench twice this term, including in the Idaho abortion case. She said (or claimed) she didn't remember the exact cases. I have my doubts that she truly forgot them.  

Vance, Harris, and a Flubbing Beauty Contestant

Upton, now a 35-year-old mother of two who has posted conservative memes, wild claims of voting fraud and Students for Trump material, did not see his joke in a positive light. “It’s a shame that 17 years later this is still being brought up. Regardless of political beliefs, one thing I do know is that social media and online bullying needs to stop,” she said on X—then deleted her account shortly afterwards.

Caitlin Upton (listed as 5'10") was a Miss Teen USA (Trump owned the pageant from 1996 to 2015) flubbed an answer about maps in 2007. She was the subject of ridicule. I'll grant that I thought the answer was really stupid. 

(“Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can’t locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?” Aimee Teegarden of Friday Night Lights asked the question.) 

Still. She was eighteen. She froze while answering a question. It's like when someone gives a stupid answer on Family Feud. And, sometimes, when you start saying something stupid (to be blunt), you continue to ramble. It's best, after being human about it, to have some empathy. Or, empathy first, if possible.

Anyway, why is this whole thing -- which is "more than 17 years old" to quote a label when I looked up an article on the matter -- relevant again? Yes. James David Vance is being an asshole again:

JD Vance posted a video of Upton’s humiliation with the caption, “BREAKING: I have gotten ahold of the full Kamala Harris CNN interview.”

So topical, James. The coverage includes a notice (did not recall reading this) that Caitlyn revealed that she was so upset at the reaction to the original flub that she had thoughts of suicide. 

National embarrassment is horrible. Again, some empathy, even for the latest subject of ridicule ... at least, if they are just guilty of goofing up. If they did something really wrong, they deserve more shame.  

When asked about the joke:

Vance expressed sympathy but did not apologize, stating, “I’m not going to apologize for posting a joke, but I wish the best for Caitlin and hope she’s doing well.”

Slate discussed why Vance is so bad at telling jokes. Jokes for him are a way to express bitterness. He has problems "reading the room." Shades of McCarthyite in The Best Man, he lacks a certain general empathy.

Upton herself found that she still had issues with the general public. As noted in the opening quote, she has been a Trump supporter and not just back in the day when he ran the pageant. People reminded her.

She took down her Twitter/X account. I think it is appropriate to tell the whole story here so did lead with both parts of the opening quote.  

This does not justify Vance's comment. It was a crude, sexist attack -- par for the course -- against the first major Harris/Vance joint media interview. On a lesser level, besides again shaming a teenage girl, it used an outdated meme that is one more level of stupidity.

(The interview overall appears to have generally been a success with nothing too earth-shattering said.) 

A long time ago, if not as long ago as the map flub, I thought up "six simple rules," leading with not being a dick. It's hard when that is a basic part of your personality.  I'll have some empathy for Vance, but darn, he should be nowhere near being vice president. 

And, Trump has had his own rambling flubs, but he's no teenager. I don't think I want Upton in office either. She's an adult now and should know better. 

==

Note: An article discussing Trump's bouncing around regarding the Florida abortion measure was telling. 

Multiple Republicans, including strongly anti-abortion people, both tried to convince themselves "deep down" that he was right on the issue or justified voting for him. Talking about human nature ... not surprising. 

RIP Phil Donahue

Ophrah Winfrey's appearance at the Democratic Convention brings to mind the recent death of Phil Donahue. He was a pioneer in daytime talk shows. 

I was not a viewer, including of his MSNBC show (he was allegedly canceled for his opposition to the Iraq War). People who dismiss him as a veteran of "low-brow" entertainment might be missing something.

President Biden's statement after his death noted:

He broadcast the power of personal stories in living rooms across the country, interviewing everyone from our greatest stars to our forgotten neighbors. Insatiably curious and accepting, Phil saw every guest as worthy of interest and worked to build understanding, helping us see each other not as enemies, but as fellow Americans.

Donahue, who was a neighbor of Erma Bombeck (who wrote about suburban home life as well as being a supporter of the ERA), got his start in the Midwest. The first guest on his Dayton talk show was Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the controversial atheist. 

He soon started his policy of directly engaging with the studio audience. Donahue focused on marriage, illness, sexuality, death, and other problems "ordinary" people could discuss. He was not just a pursuer of "shock" material. OTOH:

"Controversy is not a dirty word," he says. "controversy means it's important and it's something that people disagree on." He once said, "If they found Hitler, I'd be the first in line to interview him."

He married his high school sweetheart and had five children (four are still alive). After 17 years of marriage, his wife left him. He met the actress Marlo Thomas while she was a guest. It was apparently love at first sight. They were married for forty-four years. That's rather impressive.

Andy Humm, of Gay USA, wrote about Donahue's impressive GLBTQ activism:

He first had a gay man as his guest on his show in 1968 — before Stonewall — but LGBTQ people were frequent guests over the decades. Having gay people on, he said, taught him about homophobia. 

He told Oprah Winfrey in 2002, “There’s a reason for the closet. As the years went by after that show, I got involved in gay politics. And through my activism, I began to realize what it must be like to be born, to live, and to die in the closet. I can’t even imagine it.”

Donahue talked about AIDS on his show before most people were aware of the disease. He had people on to discuss same-sex marriage in the early 1990s. 

Donahue was Catholic but was a passionate supporter of GLBTQ issues, including marching for their rights. Insiders greatly respected him. Humm's obituary is entitled "TV talk show giant Phil Donahue, peerless ally to LGBTQ community, dies at 88."

Humm discusses Phil meeting his future second wife:

At the end of that show, Donahue grasped her hand and said, “You are fascinating.” Then Thomas grasped his hand and said, “You are wonderful. You are loving and generous and you like women and it’s a pleasure. And whoever is the woman in your life is very lucky!”

Oprah Winfrey has received some pushback for supporting sketchy individuals like "Dr. Oz." Her presence at the Democratic Convention was notable since she was generally apolitical. 

Phil Donahue in some ways perhaps has a more impressive legacy. Again, I was not someone who watches their shows.  (This is not meant to be a dig.)  I was generally aware of his liberal values, including his opposition to the Iraq War. 

He has been away from television for two decades. Many younger people might not really know who he is. He is worth remembering, both for his place in television history, and his overall life's work. 

ETA: A founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and an abortion rights activist had a less positive memory of her appearance on the show.  

Some Romance

The Dueling Duchess by Minerva Spencer is the middle novel in a trilogy involving women at a female circus in Regency England (most of this book took place in 1815-6, during the decade when King George IV stood in for his ailing father). It is the "Wicked Women of Whitechapel." She has multiple series.

The fact the book is part of a series involving three women (fighter, markswoman, knife show/some sort of spy) explains why some of the details of when the two main protagonists met were not spelled out. A trio of nobles (including an upright sort, a playboy, and a taciturn spy) go undercover in the circus as part of a plan to save one of their brothers, trapped in France. 

All three turn out to fall in love with members of the circus. This book concerns the Frenchwoman who now runs the circus and is the daughter of a great gunsmith. She gets involved with the playboy but there are various other plots. The whole thing gets to be a bit silly, but guess that's expected.  

Overall, I enjoyed it as a generally light reading, though various serious things happened. For instance, they take in a girl, whose parents died, and she has been living on the streets. She struck the jackpot finding these two. Still, so many others did not.

There are so many romance novels out there. I have not read that many. From time to time, I find one that I by chance find enjoyable. Some of these books are pretty long. This one was over three hundred and fifty pages. No wonder there was so much going on.  

A charm of these books is that they are not that deep. They are quick reading affairs. They have a few steamy sex scenes. There are a range of locales, both historical and otherwise. General fun. 

Hopefully, the characters are not totally cardboard. OTOH, some may like that sort of thing. Some have religious themes. For instance, the Amish or other comparable sects seem to be popular. These books tend to have less steamy sex scenes. 

I have three Hallmark Channels (one often has mysteries), Up TV, and Great American Family Network. So, even without others, there are a lot of light romances and cozy mysteries. 

People who watch these channels even semi-regularly realize there are regular actors, often familiar faces from the past. Oh ... it's the actress from Wonder Years ... it's that guy again ... it's Autumn Reeser.

The third actress stars in Junebug (not the Amy Adams movie), which premiered last night. I saw a preview a couple weeks ago and it looked promising. 

An adult woman (turning 40) starts to see her eight-year-old self, who is not too pleased about her boring life. Appropriately, Juniper (Junebug as a child) now edits children's books. She falls for a painter, who she selects to be an illustrator. 

Reeser has been in many Hallmark films (and a few other things). I have liked some of them. She's good here though the guy is a bit of a boring hunk type. 

Juniper has a nicely normal bestie and even-keeled parents. The story takes place at a leisurely pace and the usual difficulty that pops up is handled quickly. 

There is also a charming reference to Say Anything, including a good moment when she is excited when her new love interest (she breaks up with her boring boyfriend midway) knows about that John Cusack film. She would have been rather young to truly enjoy that 1989 film when it first came out.  

One thing about many of these films is that the characters are generally privileged. Some people could not simply quit their jobs as she does to fulfill her dream to become a writer. Another film involved someone living in the basement apartment of her sister and it was a nice basement apartment.

The different channels have a somewhat different feel. GAMF films come off as more forced. Up TV went all in with diversity (well non-white characters-wise) before Hallmark. It also is likely to have more religiously themed films.  And, if you flip through the channels, you can find others with romances too.

I'm not sure if any channel goes with having more average people having romances. One thing a lot of these films do not have is things happen in urban areas. A lot of small towns. This film had some visuals that suggest a larger location but hard to tell. 

I have a dream that I will someday of a woman mayor and president. New York currently does have a woman governor. She wouldn't be my first choice but she's okay. And, we were this close to a no drama woman mayor instead of Eric Adams. Sigh. 

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer would be a good choice for president. Now, however, we have a different choice. Well, that will do it. One out of 47 is enough, right? 

I saw Whitmer on Stephen Colbert not that long ago. She supported Biden staying in the race and promoted her book. It's a small book (around 150 pages) entitled True Gretch: What I've Learned About Life, Leadership, and Everything In Between. 

Yes, she does have that midwestern accent. I say that as a guy from the Bronx, who people say has an accent (sometimes people hear some Boston). Whitmer to me looks something like Geena Davis. 

The book is a handy quick way to get a feel about Gov. Gretchen Whitmer as she gives some advice and talks about her life and career. 

She puts herself out as a plainspoken person who doesn't take herself that seriously. She has a sense of humor, enjoying an SNL bit about her while making sure to correct the actress about using a Canadian beer. 

Whitmer also got stuff done, including her party regaining control of a state Trump won, if by a fraction of a percent. (47.50 v. 47.27). BTW, when I see talk of polls against Harris in Georgia, I say "calm down a bit." We are talking about 1-2 percent with the undecideds more than the margin. 

Geena Davis and Michael Keaton were in a political-themed romantic comedy called Speechless. Yes, I can connect a lot of things together. It was a pleasant enough film back in 1994 and they were speechwriters for competing candidates.  

Gretchen Whitmer has two daughters from her first marriage. True love forever is often not reality. Heck, even Hallmark has some characters who are divorced. 

There even was a sequel to a film (The Nine Lives of Christmas) where the match actually didn't stay together. I could not get into the film (the guy was rather stiff even in the first film) so do not know what happened in the end.  The first film was cute. 

Zero Hour!

The news is depressing. 

So, it was great to catch Zero Hour! which was the "straight" film that was a major inspiration of Airplane! I enjoyed it quite much.  

The film works on two levels. First, it is a pretty good little 1950s disaster film. Second, if you watched Airplane!, you would recognize a chunk of stuff. 

Ted Stryker has bad flashbacks from his wartime experiences, which makes it ironic when he has to fly the plane after a burst of food poisoning. There a little boy named "Joey." A doctor who says, "that isn't important now." A flight official who picked a bad week to stop smoking. And lots more.  

The wife here is named "Ellen" while in the other film it's "Elaine." The kid isn't theirs. But the overlap is rather amazing. Plus, you can see how the writers saw the comic potential in all of this. For instance, more than one character are a tad over the top.  

When the original and parody are both good, you are doing okay. I do wonder why they had the Germany mission so late in the war. April 10, 1945? 

We seem to have picked a month when well-known people died. Lou Dobbs died. 

More importantly, Bob Newhart died. I'm of the generation who saw him on Newhart, as the inn keeper. Julia Duffy (Stephanie) posted on Twitter that she was the only one left of the main cast.  

I saw him in various other things, including in Elf. A long time ago, I listened to one of his comedy albums on an old record player. You now can check out his amusing routines on YouTube. He was a gem.

There are other well-known actors in their 90s so we will have other chances to remember soon. 

RIP x 2

Shelley Duvall had an over thirty-year career in television and film.

She was in multiple seminal films in the 1970s and 1980s. Duvall was in The Shining and played Olive Oyl in the Robin Williams' Popeye film. She also was the host of Faerie Tale Theatre, an offbeat cable series. She also was in Roxanne, an amusing Steve Martin film.

She later appeared to have some issues, or at least, a bad interview with Dr. Phil. Duvall recently had another role, perhaps open to more. 

[I expand this discussion here.] 

===

Ruth Westheimer, another person in the "she was still alive?" sweepstakes, died at 96. "Dr. Ruth" had a more interesting life than a "short woman with a funny accent that talked about sex."  

Ruth was a Holocaust survivor, sent to Switzerland, while her family died in Germany. She was injured while trained as a sniper in Israel, injured by an exploding shell, but never killing anyone. 

Karola Ruth Siegel was married twice before finding her true love with her third husband, giving her the now famous last name.  She was named project director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Harlem in 1967, and she continued her night studies until she received her doctorate in education.

A community affairs director of a NYC radio station heard her give a lecture on sexual literacy to broadcasters. The rest as they say is history.

In 2023, Dr. Westheimer was named New York State’s first honorary “ambassador to loneliness” by Gov. Kathy Hochul. In that position, which RW had proposed, Dr. Westheimer would “help New Yorkers of all ages address the growing issue of social isolation, which is associated with multiple physical and mental health issues."

Sexual literacy and positivity remain important issues today. Many states have attacked both. 

ETA: Richard Simmons, famous for being a somewhat uncomfortable seeming fitness guru, has also died.

Freaky Friday

I recently learned that there was another version of Freaky Friday, a musical. I saw the Lohan version and might have seen the Jodie Foster version. I checked out some of this one and it has some charms. 

The mom (a lot of stage work) looks normal, sings well, and is a good actress. The songs overall are good. A supporting character is played by someone fans of Becker might recognize. 

The basic plot remains fascinating. What would happen if we switched bodies? How would we learn about the person whose body we switch into? What strange things would we experience?  

(A boy/girl switch would be weird. I suppose in some versions of the concept they would portray the person having sex in their new bodies.) 

BTW, it seems Colbert has a lot of vacation time. He works four-day weeks anyhow (sometimes filming double, so it really is three days), and now this is the second straight week of vacation. Nice job if you can get it.