Strange,
I miss speaking with you as well. You’re the guy who really made this site sparkle. You not only have the ability to occasionally point out the left’s foibles, but you also have demonstrated the capacity at times to see thru your own BS. This is a rare feat of humanity in our day and time. Clearly RR needs you, and maybe sometimes to temper their own hyper criticism when they lose their sense of humor to bitterness.
We saw a terrific couple of movies made in the 1940s starring Edward Arnold. The first was adapted from a novel called Odor of Violets by Baynard Kendrick.
Basically they were a hundred times more interesting than all the Spiderman type heroes of today’s movies. The detective in the 2 1940s movies was blinded in World War I and developed extraordinary faculties often associated with very accomplished blind people who have managed to developed sophisticated methods of bypassing the sight venue.
The thing that made it interesting was that all his accomplishments are actually exhibited from time to time by people who have had this training. In the fight scenes he was particularly versed in wrestling or ju-jitsu, and this is very realistic. Once he was actually able to come into physical contact with the bad guy, he would know everything he needed to know about spatial coordination and manipulation of his opponent’s body. And, in fact, as I’m sure you know, there have been some really good champion wrestlers.
Naturally, he had learned to become more aware in the hearing dimension and the tactile dimension. It also starred a very young Donna Reed. You don’t think of Donna Reed being hot, but let me tell you, buddy, she was smokin’.
He also had a couple of dogs who also functioned as guard dogs and messengers. And the whole upshot of the thing was that you had a kind of superhero based on reality and the actual accomplishments of people who have lost their sight.
Because of all this, in their own 40s fashion they were a lot more interesting than the idea that some guy gets bitten by a radioactive spider or something.
One of the things about the old movies is that they were actually created for adults who were expected to come to the theater and enjoy a plot that could be appreciated by people who were beyond adolescence. You know, there was no “We’re going in!”. We were watching a movie made in the last 15 years in which some actress ran around asking why there weren’t as many roles cast for older women.
They finally caught up with Ebert and asked him why, and he explained to them that today movies are primarily made for those 18-25. Needless to say, a seasoned 40 or 50 -year old man or woman is not going to be impressed by something the kids would find thrilling.
You know, Strange, if you are going to be up here, maybe I’ll stop by more often.
Comment by Formerly Amherst on
01/13/13 at 09:22 PM
