Review: A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) 

Director: Elia Kazan

Starring: Peggy Ann Garner, Dorothy McGuire, James Dodd, Joan Blondell

I read Betty Smith's "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" three summers ago, and ever since, it has been one of my favorites. I had been wanting to see the movie, but it was unavailable on Netflix until recently. For those of you not familiar with it, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn tells the story of Francie Nolan, a young girl living in Williamsburg near the turn of the century. Her coming of age is riddled with less than easy circumstances which force her to grow up fast. Her father, Johnny, is a luckless but lovable singing waiter with a weakness for alcohol whom she hero worships. Her mother, Katie, is hardworking and practical, hardened by her determination to create a better future for her own kids. Katie's sister, Sissy, is a wonderful, warm woman and a lovely aunt to Francie and her brother but is branded by a liberated sexual attitude and a carelessness that are the reasons for the multiple marriages she's got under her belt. These adults in her life, her struggles, and her own idealism sparked by a love of literature shape Francie as she transforms from a little girl to a young woman.

Despite the fact that Elia Kazan directed this, I found this film to be more corny than gritty. And to me, that was the real failure of the film. A kind of tenacity exists in the book that is not as prevalent in the movie, and when it does come across, it is very heavy handed. Granted, because it was the 1940s and the Hays Code was in effect, there were more gruesome aspects crucial to the original story that couldn't have been portrayed in this. For example, Sissy's story of marriages and miscarriages, touched on but not fully developed in the film, was, to me, one of the most heartbreaking parts in the book. Also, a horrific incident where a pervert molests Francie - her father lovingly tries to preserve her innocence to the best of his ability afterwards, a gesture that greatly demonstrated their strong bond. Of course, like I said, seeing that it was the 40s, it was not a viable possibility that Kazan could have addressed the latter, but the former could have, in my opinion, been further expanded upon.

Peggy Ann Garner won a Juvenile Oscar for her portrayal of the main character, Francie. The problem with child actors is that they usually fall into over exaggerated mannerisms - and I don't blame them for it, because after all, they are kids, and I rather fault the directors who encourage this acting as a means of buying the hearts of viewers. I didn't find Garner to be an exception above that typical standard. Francie's childhood has its good moments, but many times it was cruel and this lent her sensitivity and a maturity beyond her years, which is absent in Garner's performance. However, Garner effectively captures her idealism.

Dorothy McGuire can be very enjoyable in the right thing - for example, she is wonderful in Friendly Persuasion and she is even good in the light romantic role given to her in A Summer Place. She is fair as Katie; what I liked least was her tendency to be over theatrical, which I'm sure stems back to Kazan, and this hurt her chances at conveying the quiet resilience of the character so palpable in the book. But she is also successfully stoic and strong at other moments. James Dunn won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar as ne'er do well Johnny. His is one of the stronger performances in the film, though physically, he is never what I pictured Johnny to be: in the book he is young and handsome but Dunn seems tired, old, wrinkled next to twenty-seven year old Dorothy McGuire. Then there is Joan Blondell as Sissy. As I mentioned above, Sissy was one of my favorite things about the book and while I hail Blondell as the iconic gum snapping blonde dame of the thirties, I kind of wish she hadn't been cast in the role. Her performance is one dimensional, displaying Sissy's fun loving side but void of any of the sadness that is so touching in the book. However, in her defense, Blondell definitely suffers from the stagnant development of her character, and she might have been able to preform better had Sissy's character been better served by the script. Lastly, Lloyd Nolan in a smaller role as Officer McShane, the kind police officer who befriends the Nolan family. He was good and I really have no complaints.

Ultimately, the problem with A Tree Grows in Brooklyn is that it takes a plucky story of a girl's maturing into adulthood and forces it to become sentimental and schmaltzy. In doing so, it makes characters that in the book are so beautifully complicated seem flat and stereotypical. Really, this film can't do justice to the book - so if you haven't read that yet, my advice to you is skip the movie and read that instead.

(P.S. It's been nearly two years since I'd done a movie review on here! Here's to getting back into it.)

Sunday Movie Review: "The Snake Pit" (1948)

Bonjour!

So, today is the first edition of the "Sunday Movie Review" (I know, such a clever title). I created this segment for a couple of reasons. One, in keeping with the tradition of movie blogs, I should probably be doing way more movie reviews than I already do. And it's not that I don't enjoy doing them, it's only that I don't think I'm real great at them... especially doing long ones. I'm used to do shorter ones on Netflix. But here I have all this space for pictures, and video clips, and well, they become quite extended.

But I guess writing a movie review each Sunday will give me enough practice to get really good at it... eventually. Anyhow, I am also staring this because of my new "drive in" header. This week will be the only one in which I am not going to change the header... I've decided to leave Clark and Vivien up until next Sunday so they can complete a full week (and a little more), and then I'll change it next Sunday. But most weeks I will probably be changing the movie that's playing at the drive in depending on what I watched (and reviewed)... which is why I've decided to write these reviews at the beginning of the week.

Also, school will be starting for me in a couple of weeks (ugh!). This will be quite an important year for me with my studies and all, so I probably won't be able to post every day like I do now. I know it's hard to believe with the amount I write these days, but for fear of neglecting this blog, the Sunday Movie Review will force me to update here at least weekly. And since I don't want this blog just to be made up of movie reviews, I will try to update once in the work week (Mon - Fri) and once over the weekend with my Sunday Movie Review. (I usually land up watching a movie either on a Friday or Saturday night, even during the school year, so don't worry about me not having a movie to review). At the LEAST. (Because I love blogging.)

Anyway, now that I've got all of that explained, I guess it's time to start. In the past couple of days, I watched two very different movies: "The Snake Pit" (1948) and "Inside Daisy Clover" (1965) and I had a hard time choosing which one to review for you. "Inside Daisy Clover" is a part of my Natalie Wood Movie Collection (which came yesterday), but not a very good movie. In fact, it was pretty awful. And even though I was thinking about doing a negative review about this quite terrible film, I'm think I'm going to have to go and do a review for "The Snake Pit."

***

I'm really loving this poster. It looks like the cover of one of those Nancy Drew Mysteries I used to read as a little kid.

I decided to rent this movie after it was on TCM about a year ago. I happened to catch it someplace in the middle. For some reason, it left a very loud and creepy impression on me (well, it is a movie about a mental hospital - but after watching it all the way through, that's not the feel that I got this time) and I didn't watch it. But my dad told me it was a good movie, and since recently I've really been loving Olivia de Havilland films, I decided to give it a try.

Here's the summary for those of you who don't know:

Deeply troubled Virginia Cunningham (Olivia de Havilland) finds herself in a mental hospital. Her world is a confused blur as the determined Dr. Kik (Leo Genn) tries to find a way to save her. Tortured by tarnished memories of her past, Virginia is forced to come to terms with her mental illness  (with her husband and doctor by her side) as she journeys through the several terrifying wards of the "snake pit." Celeste Holm makes an appearance as her nearly sane friend, Grace.

The cast has:

• Olivia de Havilland as Virginia Cunningham
• Mark Stevens as Robert Cunningham, her husband
• Leo Genn as Dr. Kik, her determined doctor
• Celeste Holm as her friend, Grace
• And a series other supporting players as mental patients and a super annoying nurse

It's directed by Anatole Litvak. 

Olivia was nominated for an Oscar for this, and I really enjoyed her performance. It's quite a shame she didn't win because she is really terrific. She brings life to Virginia's character, and makes her human. Not only that, she makes Virginia a lovable character, one that you want desperately  for her to get better.

One of my favorite parts was Virginia's very sane (yet confused) thoughts that we only hear. This is a serious movie, but what goes on in her head brings light and even some laughter to the film. For example, there is a scene early on in the film when one of the nurses greets her with a, "Hello, Virginia." In her mind, we hear hers say something along the lines of: How do you know my name? And what am I supposed to tell you - Hello, Kiddo? Later on, her husband comes to visit her and Virginia thinks he's a fake. She tells herself, My, they do a good job.

She also delivers really cute lines throughout the film. In one scene, another patient boasts to her that she owns the Hope Diamond. Virginia says quickly in return, "Well, I have the Hopeless Emerald."

In another scene, we get a look into Virginia's head: she thinks she's drowning in a huge ocean. But in reality, she is only in a tub screaming her head off while nurses tend to her.

Virginia clutches on for dear life in her "drowning scene"

I really loved her character.

This is all Olivia, all her film. The performance of the doctor by a Leo Genn was good, if only stereotypical. I was not pleased with Mark Stevens as the husband. His character is stale. To be fair to him, he gets pretty bland lines, but he doesn't do much with them. Olivia gets all the great lines though and she really has fun with them and eats it up. I read that in preparation for this movie, she visited several mental hospitals and sat in on therapy sessions, and even attended a dance between two mental hospitals like you see in the film. No wonder she sparkles as Virginia!

Celeste Holm gets pretty big billing for this considering you really only see her character for ten minutes, as one of Virginia's friends.

A "Helen Craig"  plays Nurse Davis, or the super annoying nurse I mentioned. She is a fantastically wonderful character to hate. You know, like one of those really awful people who always manages to get her way and you just kind of want to sock her in the nose.

I guess to just put it simply, this is a really good film. They don't really make them like this anymore. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I know I haven't really talked all that much about it, and this review is kind of short. But I guess it ought to show you its brilliance through that alone, because when a film is so good, it usually leaves you a little at a loss for words. (If I had reviewed "Inside Daisy Clover," which I will probably land up doing eventually, I would've gone on for quite a while...) 

Lastly, the movie is right here on Youtube:

So you don't have an excuse not to watch it! I give it four of five stars. Really a rather good movie, and since it's not one of those films with the "classic" label stamped on it, totally deserves more credit.

***

Well, that's it for the first edition of the Sunday Movie Review. Before I sign off, I'd quickly like to note the passing of a great foreign film star from Bollywood's own "classic era." It is Indian actor Shammi Kapoor, who, as I was informed by my mom, died today aged seventy nine. I'm not all that into Bollywood films (and I haven't seen any of his) or foreign films at all for that matter, but in India he was hailed as a great actor of Bollywood's own golden era of the 50's and 60's, so I thought he most certainly deserved a mention.  

Anyhow, hoped you enjoyed the first Sunday Movie Review!

"Woman Of The Year" (1942) - Movie Review

Before I start my movie review for "Woman of the Year," I'd like to quickly mention a few things. The first is that I have entered a new blogathon. Participating in the Loving Lucy Blogathon was so much fun and also helped get the word out about my blog, so I decided to join another. This one is called the "Fashion in Film" Blogathon, hosted by The Hollywood Revue (hollywoodrevue.wordpress.com). The blogathon will take place on September 24th and basically the idea is to discuss fashion in film. I'm not sure yet of what I'll blog about, but I've got time. I encourage other bloggers to join this too, because it looks like great fun.

Also, you may have noticed that my "Old Hollywood Bio" book has changed (see the sidebar). I know I promised everyone a review of "Not the Girl Next Door", but here's the thing - I lost it. The book, I mean. I wasn't very far and then somehow it got misplaced, and I can't find it. I hate when that happens! Anyway, I decided to finish "Desilu" instead. I want to write a book review of that and plan to do so soon, but I thought I'd give you all a break because you're probably tired of me babbling about Lucy (even though I could never get sick of it!). So, I've started "I Know Where I'm Going", and it looks great.

Last night I watched "Woman of the Year." I really love Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn films - they are one of my favorite screen pairings. Now that I've seen "Woman of the Year," I've viewed six of their total nine films and I plan to watch the other three eventually, too.

I'm sure most of you have already seen "Woman of the Year" and know what it's all about, but here's a brief summary, anyway.

Katharine Hepburn plays Tess Harding, a greatly respected wordly feminist who gives her views on politics in a column she runs in the newspaper. Spencer Tracy is Sam Craig, who is serious about baseball and writes the sports column. The two begin a war of words after Tess openly criticizes baseball over the radio, despite working for the same newspaper. When the two finally meet face to face, it's an instant attraction and all is forgiven. They fall in love, despite the fact that their personalities are quite different. They decided to get married but it is not long before Sam discovers he is living life as "Mr. Harding," playing second fiddle to Tess - The Woman of the Year. 

This film is certainly not the BEST of the Hepburn and Tracy set, but I still enjoyed myself. It is more of a romantic comedy then you would have expected. This is the first film the two ever made together and, I think, they fall in love on the set of this movie. (Apparently, when Joseph Mankiewicz introduced Katharine Hepburn to Spencer Tracy, she went, "I'm afraid I'm too tall for you, Mr. Tracy." Ha! I love Kate).

Anyway, I think Kate and Spencer's backstage rendezvous helped them on screen. In many ways, it's quite hard to understand what makes the two of them fall for each other so hard and all of a sudden. (Besides the fact that Sam seemed to have some sort of an infatuation with Tess's legs). I think it's the most obvious "love at first sight" scenario that I've ever seen.

Whatever they lose in back story, they make up in chemistry. They're all quite affectionate and cute with each other, which is nice ("That's nice," as Tess would whisper often), but makes it more of a romance than a comedy.

I really liked Kate's performance. Actually, I quite liked the character. If you're a male chauvinist you'd probably hate her - well, then you'd hate the whole film. I guess some people could call Tess Harding annoying, but I'll tell you why I liked her. It was 1942, and, maybe with the exception of Roz Russell's Hildy Johnson in "His Girl Friday", her character was most unusual. Think about it: besides the fact that she's a woman who writes a column about politics, men and women alike actually value her opinion on serious topics. The Sam Craig character pales next to her - his greatest priority is discussing last night's fights while Tess, a woman of the world, covers the war in Europe.

That's why I liked Tess Harding. And, I liked Kate's portrayal of her.

Then there is Spencer as Sam Craig. Really, Spencer Tracy is Sam Craig and Sam Craig is Spencer Tracy. He really fits his character. Sure, maybe a younger actor would have been more physically appropriate to be romancing Kate but I still think he did a good job. He quite falteringly plays second banana to Kate - to be fair, it's really Kate's film, though. That's why it's called "Woman of the Year."

I found some weaknesses in the plot. I was kind of upset with the way Sam and Tess just fall for each other without much explanation - but even though I can take that, it annoyed me when later in the film Sam becomes all of a sudden upset of Tess's successes. For God's sake, when they were dating he crumpled in her dinner parties of foreign tongued big wigs. He knew what an important person she was to begin with, so he obviously should have been prepared if he planned on marrying her. His only excuse, I guess, was he was blinded by love.

Still, it was enjoyable. I really enjoyed the ending. Even though this movie is quite light fare and you can probably predict the ending yourself, I'll give you a big spoiler alert right here:

** SPOILER! SKIP THE NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM! **

My favorite scene was the last one in which Kate tries to cook breakfast for Spencer. She realizes she really wants to be with him and make him happy like the average retro housewife. So she sneaks into his house early in the morning (no, it's not as creepy as it sounds) and attempts to make him coffee and waffles. Attempts. Even when he walks in on her and rebuffs her for what she's trying to do, she determinedly continues on. She destroys the waffles, which rise from the iron in a bubbling concoction due to yeast, and the coffee comes exploding out of the peculator. It's a really a cute scene and gives Kate a chance to show off her comedic abilities. It is quite symbolic that Tess Harding may be the Woman of the Year, but she can't do a simple task like cook breakfast.

Kate's waffles

Finally, Sam gives in and takes Tess in his arms and says some meaningful lines: "I don't want to be married to Tess Harding any more than I want you to be just Mrs Sam Craig. Why can't you be Tess Harding Craig?" I think this is a telling compromise to the end the film. It's not stereotypical: give up your job to cook the breakfast and kiss me good bye in the morning and when I come back hang up my coat for me and tell me what you and the girls did all day. Instead, it is more of a symbol of some kind of an awkward equality between the two. The best of both worlds.  

Here's the trailer, because I couldn't find a video clip:

Over all, I enjoyed this movie because I enjoy Tracy and Hepburn, and I enjoy them together. Maybe I'm being a little generous, but I'll give it four out of five. Not the very BEST of their films, but being the first Hepburn/Tracy film, it's one everyone should try and see.

"No Sad Songs For Me" - I experiment with women's dramas (SPOILERS)

Hi there!

With last Wednesday being Natalie's birthday - as we all know by now - TCM honored her with a selection of her movies, most of them films from earlier in her career. A lot of these aren't available on DVD, so I hadn't seen them before. I recorded "No Sad Songs For Me" (1950), to watch later.

"No Sad Songs For Me" is not available on DVD, and there weren't any clips on Youtube, so I decided it would be a good opportunity to experiment with a new segment called "A Movie in 10 Minutes," in which I record highlights of a film for you, string it together, and post it on Youtube to share it here. I would love to upload the whole movie, but it would be a pain in the neck to get it done, and not only that, Youtube wouldn't be quite happy. If this goes well, who knows - it would be fun to do again!

"No Sad Songs For Me" is a weepy, "women's drama" of the late forties. These were basically melodramatic films enjoyed by housewives on a Thursday afternoon movie matinee when the housework was finished, the pot roast was in the oven, the Husband was away at work and the Kids at school. The housewives would sit in the balcony of the theater, dabbing at their tear riddled eyes with handkerchiefs that boasted their initials embroidered into the upper left corner. After the picture was over, they would dry their eyes and return back to the role of the stereotypical retro housewife, glad that they are not in the same shoes as the victim of the film.

This was pretty strong fare, in which everything that can go wrong, does go wrong. No wonder they call it a women's drama! When I set up to TiVo this, I did so with the intention of watching a Natalie film, but also with interest in watching a women's drama.

The plot is like this - Margaret Sullavan plays Mary, a devoted housewife and mother to husband Brad (Wendell Corey) and daughter Polly (who seems to be nine or ten - in reality, Natalie was twelve). She loves Brad very much and he her. The family hopes for another child, perhaps a boy. Mary visits the family friend and doctor, Rick, about "her project." He gives her bad news - she cannot have any more children, and sends her away, telling her to rest. But Mary thinks something else may be wrong with her, so she goes back and is able to squeeze out of him what he planned to tell Brad privately (how sexist! lol) - Mary has cancer. It is too late for treatment, and she has only six months to live. Mary decides not to tell anyone and tries to enjoy the last few months of her life - really. I mean, if you had six months to live, don't you think it would be a good idea to try and not be too angelic and tell your family? She only tells Brad that they can have no more children. Meanwhile, Brad hires a new draftsman at work, a pretty European tomboy named Chris, played by Viveca Lindfors (who tries her best to be Ingrid Bergman esque). Though he loves Mary, he feels attraction and affection to Chris and vice versa. And Polly doesn't know a thing.

Here is the "movie in ten minutes." I include the ending and a few spoilers, so if you don't want spoilers, don't watch all the way through. Truthfully, though, it's hard to find a copy of this film online (and it's not really worth all the trouble) so you may just want to watch it. I'm sorry the sound is so bad!

First Scene: The opening scene of the film
Second Scene: Mary learns she has cancer
Third Scene: Brad hires Chris
Fourth Scene: Mary confesses to Brad about the baby - but not about the cancer
Fifth Scene: Mary tries to continue living whatever is left of her life, like attending this New Year's Party. Brad spends a lot of the night dancing with Chris, but rushes to her side when the clock turns twelve - this is telling in his feelings for both women
Sixth Scene: Mary overhears two friends gossiping about her husband's relationship with Chris
Seventh Scene: Mary visits San Francisco to see her father one last time. She asks him about a former classmate whose wife died, and how he is getting along
Eighth Scene:  Mary writes Brad a letter from SF revealing the truth about her cancer, and to please meet her at the station and try not to look "too sad"
Ninth Scene: Mary returns home to find that Brad is not there, and that the letter is unopened. He does not know. He does not come home from dinner, and she gets a call from him that he is sorry he could not come home, while it is revealed to us he is really having dinner with Chris. Mary takes the car and drives like a maniac, but before she can kill herself, she runs out of fuel and a policeman finds her
Tenth Scene: Mary confronts Chris, who admits to her that she has always loved Brad - but she does not want to be a home wrecker and will leave now. Mary tells her not to go, and convinces Chris to stay, as she knows Chris will probably take her place when she dies
Eleventh Scene: Mary gets Polly to spend time with Chris
Twelfth Scene: Brad finds some pills of Mary's, calls the doctor up about it, and discovers the truth about her cancer.
Thirteenth Scene: Brad and Mary take a trip to Mexico like she has always wanted (in the last weeks of her life).
Fourteenth Scene: Chris, who is staying with Polly, gets a call from Mexico. I'm pretty sure it is Brad telling her that Mary has died.
Fifteenth Scene: Final scene.

So, what did I think of this film? I thought it was interesting. I mean, it was overtly dramatic - Mary has cancer, is going to die in six months, won't tell anybody out of the good of her heart, she has a little kid, her husband is cheating on her, but she encourages his mistress to stay... Mary is more a goody two shoes than Olivia de Havilland's Melanie in "Gone with the Wind" - and that's saying a lot! 

Still, the fact that it is so dramatic keeps you on your toes. It is a big showcase for Margaret Sullavan, who, in reality, committed suicide herself at the age of 50 (and, in succession, two of her three kids committed suicide after that), so obviously this film didn't teach her anything about the preciousness of life. It is also a bit of an ominously ironic film for Natalie, who died at the age of forty-three (drowning), with daughters about Polly's age.

It is overly weepy. But it does tug at your heartstrings. You will be upset at Brad for cheating on Mary when she's DYING (even though he doesn't know it... BUT. STILL!), and you'll be sad when Mary dies. (My God, this post is riddled with nasty spoilers... sorry! But I couldn't resist on this). You will feel sorry for naive little Polly, who has no clue about what is really going on in her life with her philandering father and dying mother, and it is left to play the piano with her father's mistress.

I guess my final verdict is I would give it three stars out of five. If you have an empty afternoon and want to keep yourself entertained, this should do the trick. You'll also enjoy this if you are a fan of soap operas - which I, personally, am not. it was fun one time around, but I doubt I'll become an avid collector of "women's dramas"... I guess I watched this mostly for Natalie, who, as Suzanne Finstad (the author of her biography) put it - "This picture was a showcase for stage actress Margaret Sullavan; Natalie was basically a backdrop." And she was. Oh, well.

Thanks for reading, and I'll be back tomorrow with a lookalike contest: which child looks mostly like their (Old Hollywood) celebrity parents? Lol, I can't wait. ;)

I'll leave you with a interesting picture of Michael Jackson and Princess Diana at one of his London concerts for his "Bad" tour... that evening in which he omitted "Dirty Diana" from the lineup, to the Princess's chagrin, who admitted the song was "her favorite of his." 

Ciao!

Reviews By a 10 Year Old Kid (AKA: Rianna embarrasses herself)

Taking a note from a few other bloggers, I have decided to embarrass myself greatly and share with you five little reviews I wrote as a nine or ten year old kid. Please remember that I was nine. I hope you get a good laugh out of it, my lovely little blog readers. I was in a bit of a writer's block today - but tomorrow I can probably produce something more worthy of your time. For now... have a good giggle.

***

Well will start off with Rianna's incredibly embarrassing ten year old child review for "Forever Darling" (1956), with Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz.

"FOREVER DARLING (1956)"

Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz

Ten year old Rianna says -

Even though this movie litrally would've been titled, "Four More Years, Darling", since the love duo of Ball and Arnaz lasted until 1960 only, "Forever, Darling" is sweet and charming. It's a lot like the amazing TV series and "The Long, Long Trailer", but I liked this better than the Long, Long Trailer. Ball and Arnaz play similar characters to their TV show, but slightly different. Arnaz is a scientist this time and Ball is not always botching things up. Susan Vega (Ball) and Larry Vega (Arnaz) were the perfect couple when they were married. But five years later, they are drifting a part. Susan is turning into a clone of her cousin Millie Opdike, and no matter how hard she tries, she can't stop swooning over James Mason at the movies! Larry is almost never at home for dinner nad is constantly eating, breathing, and thinking all about his new pesticide. (Except for that one time when he has a dream about Ava Gardner.....). Then Larry announces that he and Susan will be taking a 2 year field trip to test the pesticide! Susan is furious. After having a fight with Larry, her guardian angel, James Mason, shows up. She has mixed emotions about Mason-first she's scared of him, then angry at him, and then in love with him! But Mason, in his charming voice and attitude, is able to coax Susan into learning more about Larry's work. Susan suddenly, with a burst of inspiration, agrees. She finds the perfect oppertunity to do so when Larry announces he's going on a camping trip for a day to test the pesticide before the 2 year field trip. Nothing can go wrong, can it? But, of course, in it's usual Lucy way, it does! This movie, of course, is perdictible. But Ball and Arnaz's acting, of course, is superb. So what, it's not an Oscar-y movie, but it's still great for Lucy fans. Four stars for pure Desiluness! ~~~~~~~~

What Makes Teenage Rianna Cringe the Most - 

• My usage of the phrase "love duo". UGH! What the bloody L is that supposed to mean? (Yes, I'm  American - but I have habit of using British phrases. Long story... you'll get used to it) This makes me cringe so much I was contemplating not even mentioning it ;)
• The fact that I give away nearly the entire plot, making this review about a thousand pages long. 
• My insane obsession with "~". I guess i thought it looked cool. (?)
• Last but not least, my equally obnoxious use of "Desiluness." Only a true Lucy fan could use a word like THAT. Plus, as much as I love Lucy and Desi, too, it isn't really a four star movie. And "The Long Long Trailer" is much better. But I guess, in my little ten year old brain...

Next to suffer my ten year old wrath is "The Lady Eve" (1941). * shivers *

"THE LADY EVE (1941)"

Barbara Stanwyck, Henry Fonda

Ten year old Rianna says - 

'The Lady Eve' is a fun movie, good for kids ages ten and up. (They will understand the idea more.) The beginning is a little rocky, but soon you will be propelled into the plot as Stanwyck, playing a young daughter of a con-artist tries to ploy into Fonda, a 'geeky' but handsome young man who has just come back from an Amazon tour and "isn't used to seeing women still.” As expected, he is loaded with cash. Stanwyck and her father try to con money out of him by playing casino games, and Stanwyck begins a planned romantic relationship with Fonda. Fonda, easily fooled, plays along and soon Stanwyck finds herself actually in love with the young man! The rest, I will leave to everyone else to find out, but you’ll find a lot of inner-joy and pleasure to watch this movie, and will be very ‘pleased as pink’, as they say, at the nice turnout. I’d give it a 4 and a half stars if I could, but I can’t, so it’s displayed as 4 stars above, but really, I’d give it 4 and a half. Rent this movie as soon as you can! (And try to ignore Stanwyck’s fur coat, please).

What Makes Teenage Rianna Cringe the Most -

• My trying to determine the perfect age group for watchers of "The Lady Eve." Because a 10 year old kid would totally know that, right?
• My use of "inner-joy" and "pleased as pink." 'Nuff said.
• My great indecision and babbling about the film's rating.... that would just make any person annoyed, wouldn't it?
• The "trying to ignore Stanwyck's fur coat, please." I am still totally against fur - I have a chinchilla, after all! - but still... it's just... I don't know. annoying sounding. To me, anyway ;)

Okay, I'll give you just one more. This is for "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" (1947).

"THE BACHELOR AND THE BOBBY SOXER (1947)"

Cary Grant, Myrna Loy, Shirley Temple

Ten year old Rianna says - 

I wasn't surprised that I enjoyed Cary Grant (a la Archibald Leach.....funny) and Myrna Loy's preformances in this movie, but I was surprised that I enjoyed Shirley Temple. I was very much afraid this would be another showcase of her dripping sweet cuteness and silly songs, but thank goodness, I guess growing up helped. Surprisingly, she really DID deserve to be in this movie with these two Hollywood stars and made the best out of it. Temple plays a love-struck teenager who is in love with a man, Grant, that comes to speak at her school. Loy, who plays Temple's older sister, however, finds the man horribly annoying. It's a really cute movie if you're trying to introduce a teenager to classic movies and show that classic movies CAN be cool (and in many situations, cooler than today's movies). It's sweet and what I would call a classic chic flick (You don't need Kate Hudson or designer Prada labels in a movie for it to be a chic flick, or made in the last few years). I enjoyed it; it was really cute, for sure. It will bring you back to the era.....of bobby-soxers! ~ rent this movie!!!!!

What Makes Teenage Rianna Cringe the Most -

• My use of "dripping sweet cuteness and silly songs" - it just doesn't make sense. I mean, as much as I am not a big Shirley fan, she was a teenager by now, so really, what was I expecting?
• The whole business about me blabbering away about using this movie to introduce classics to teenagers - in spite of the fact I wasn't yet a teenager myself. I mean, yeah, it's a good movie. But still, I'm just blabbering too much.
• My spelling of chick flick as "chic flick." Good God! 
• "back to the era.........of bobby soxers!" follow by yet another "~" and more !!!!!!

***

Well, I don't know about you, but I've finished embarrassing myself at the present moment. Oh, who knows? I may embarrass myself like this some more another day. But for today, I'm finished.

Before I leave you, yesterday I went to the bookstore and got two books - "Diana at 50" by Life magazine (it's got tons of great pictures... more on that later) and "Desilu", which i am not sure why I didn't get it earlier! It's got some great pictures of Lucy and Desi inside, and the following is one of my favorite. I scanned it for you. It's so awesome/and lovely. I love the pictures of them as children on the wall with the plaques underneath that read "Our President" and "Our Vice President." (They mean President and Vice-President of Desilu, of course).