Batman: 60’s Campy Fun

Every now and then, a certain TV show or film is looked upon favorably by the Gods and allowed to have absolute perfection. The 1966 “Batman” TV series is one of those cases. Perfect casting, perfect music, perfect crew, and just the perfect amount of cheese. Cheese? Yup...that perfect amount of camp humor that lets the audience know that they know that it’s every bit as cheesey as you think it is. Adam West gives a pitch-perfect performance as Batman; every line uttered as if it were Shakespeare, giving the camp lines the deadpan humor that they deserve. Burt Ward’s enthusiasm as The Boy Wonder is classic. Together, they are one of the greatest duos in TV history. Yvonne Craig added a much needed element of female sexuality; who doesn’t remember her startling transformation into the skin-tight purple glitter costume and red wig? Hot damn! And just about every celebrity in Hollywood wanted to play a villain on Batman. Check out a few of them: Talullah Bankhead, Cesar Romero, Van Johnson, Eartha Kitt, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Liberace, Milton Berle, Shelley Winters....need I go on?



Living near LA & Hollywood, it’s always fun to scout out the original locations used in movies and television. The Batcave from 1966’s “Batman” is naturally one I sought out! How many kids were thrilled each week to see the Batmobile roaring out of the cave, getting ready to do battle with a super villain! Here’s how the cave looks in “the real world”:





This cave, located in Bronson Canyon, has also been used in “Star Trek,” “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” and “Wonder Woman.” And yes, I am referring to the original versions!

Sadly enough, the TV series has never made it to DVD because of legal problems. Let’s hope that gets wrapped up soon so that this show can find a new legion of fans. To see more Movie & TV photos, visit my regular website.

Serendipity, Robert Redford, The Conspirator, and Savannah

My life has been full of serendipitous moments; on my most recent trip to Savannah, it turned out that Robert Redford was filming his latest movie, “The Conspirator.” Set in the Civil War era, it is about Mary Surratt (Robin Wright Penn) and her involvement in the assassination of President Lincoln. On my last day in town, I was able to watch a little bit of the filming that occurred on the steps of the Customs House. Redford gave the appearance of a quiet, thoughtful, and attentive director; it was fantastic to watch him at work as he truly is a living legend. The scene that was being filmed featured Tom Wilkinson (“The Full Monty”) and James McAvoy (“Wanted” & “Chronicles of Narnia”).



Even Civil War military men use point and shoot cameras!





Redford talks to his lead actors in between takes.











It was fascinating to watch, but also shows that behind-the-scenes, the movie business is not so glamorous. In order to get these few minutes of film in the can was at least a two-day process or more. You can imagine the frustration of the crew when a scene winds up on the cutting room floor. To see more “Conspirator” photos, visit my regular website.

Lost in Space: Still my fave

Picture this: the cheesiest of props…ham acting…juvenile (sometimes) scripts, and the most heart-warming sentimental drivel this side of whatever place you care to name. And yet, it still remains one of my favorite shows. Irwin Allen sure knew how to stretch a dollar, and often enough it shows on “Lost in Space.” With a fantastic ensemble cast and just about every kind of alien imagineable, LIS has achieved a legendary cult status that continues to grow. The initial pilot was very serious in tone, and any laughs were strictly unintended. Dr. Smith, played by eternal guest star status Jonathan Harris, began on the show as 100% evil, with very few (if any) redeeming qualities. Realizing this could mean a short shelf-life for his character, Harris injected a bit of camp into his character and it paid off in spades. Unfortunately, by the 3rd season, the entire show degenerated into a campfest and lost any grounding that it originally had. Even so, it was a lot of fun. And I still love to watch it!

Didn’t every kid wish they could have their own Jupiter 2?



And I’m sure that most kids wished their parents were as cool as Maureen & John Robinson. The things she could whip up with a few alien ingredients! She put Betty Crocker to shame—and knew how to use a laser to boot!



To see more Movie/TV photos, visit my regular website.

Noble Failure—Marnie

This was the title of an article from Premiere magazine back in August 1998 which discussed famous flops in movie history that might actually have had more going for them than their contemporary audiences gave them credit for. “Marnie” is just about the only movie mentioned that the magazine doesn’t really have anything negative to say. Instead, it puts it in the misunderstood classic category. Read for yourself:

Alfred Hitchcock directed “Notorious” in 1946, but that title could easily have been applied to Hitchcock’s 1964 mystery, “Marnie.” The previous year, the filmmaker had launched the career of Tippi Hedren, with “The Birds,” and when he cast her again, in “Marnie” (after failing to convince Grace Kelly to temporarily set aside her crown and come out of retirement to take the lead role), Hitchcock was determined to make Hedren a major star—one who would be beholden to him. But, as in the convoluted plots of many of his films, things went awry. Hitchcock’s unnerving fixation on Hedren, about which much has been written, led to an altercation on the set. All the director ever said about it was, “She did what no one is permitted to do. She referred to my weight.” In his later years, Hitchcock freely discussed his movies, but he seldom went into much detail about “Marnie”—and he never spoke of Hedren. That “Marnie” deals with a man’s fetishism and a woman’s psychosexual repression makes the film’s relationship to reality all the more creepy, not to mention endlessly fascinating.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: By the time “Marnie was released, the French New Wave critics (including future directors Claude Chabrol and Eric Rohmer) had transformed the master of suspense into an artist, and the American critics weren’t having it. In the New York Herald Tribune, Judith Crist said of “Marnie,” “New it isn’t, in form or content. Mr Hitchcock himself made this kind of movie nigh on to twenty years ago, and made it a lot better.” The New York Times wrote, “A strong suspicion arises that Mr. Hitchcock is taking himself too seriously—perhaps the reuslt of listening to too many esoteric admirers.”

BOX OFFICE: After the huge success of “Psycho” in 1960, and the strong showing of “The Birds” in 1963, “Marnie” was a disappointment, if not an outright flop. On 1964’s box office list, it landed at number 30 out of 73 films, and it returned only $2.25 million to the studio.



WHY IT MATTERS: This “great flawed film” (as François Truffaut later dubbed it) was the lst picture of Hitchcock’s moviemaking prime, an amazingly fertile period that began with “Rope,” in 1948. It was the last time he would work with his longtime cinematographer, Robert Burks, and his trusted editor, George Tomasini. It was also the last of his filims to feature the music of the legendary Bernard Herrmann, who would have a falling-out with the director on his next film, “Torn Curtain.” Coming after the visceral shocks of “Pyscho” and “The Birds,” “Marnie” must have befuddled audiences, for it deals almost exclusively with emotional violence; its characters—each tending his or her own particular wound—maneuver themselves like neurotic chess pieces in a game of attration and denial, lust and repression. These characters don’t invite easy empathy, as even screenwriter Jay Presson Allen concedes. “The character of Marnie is a liar and a thief, and there’s nothing sympathetic about her,” she says. But Hedren does her seemingly impenetrable characer proud, and Sean Connery, playing a man who is unnaturally attracted to a woman he knows is a thief, imbues his vexing role with impressive grace and virility. While some of the technical trickery is strained, certain individual moments—the scene where Marnie washes the black dye out of her hair is one of many—have a power that recalls Hitchcock’s masterpiece “Vertigo.” In some ways “Marnie” is an even more tortured and ambivalent ode on obsessio than that great film; definitively unsettling, it grows more so with each viewing.



To see more Marnie photos, visit my regular website.

Elvis: The Way I Like To Remember Him

For the majority of his career, Elvis Presley was an extremely handsome slim & trim man. Sadly, he is mainly remembered today for how he looked and behaved in his final few years when he was paunchy, full of bling, and at times a little out of it. This is just as much a statement on Americans as it is on Elvis.

Here are two photos on display at Graceland, which I had the pleasure to visit recently. More from that trip to come.



To see more Elvis photos, visit my regular website.

The Blue Bird: 20th Century Fox’s answer to The Wizard of Oz

Not wanting to tie up their number one star by loaning her out to another studio, 20th Century Fox declined MGM’s attempt to borrow Shirley Temple to star in “The Wizard of Oz.” In actuality, it was the number crunchers who wanted little Shirley in the first place; the creatives behind MGM’s lavish musical didn’t really want Shirley at all, but rather had their sights set on up-and-coming star Judy Garland. Although Shirley was physically closer in type to play Dorothy because of her younger age, Judy Garland was able to bring a realism through her vocal talents and natural acting ability that Shirley would not have been capable of. A less than impressive vocal audition for Roger Edens convinced MGM that Shirley was not right for the part, regardless of what Fox was willing to do.

Still, studio head Darryl Zanuck realized with the success of Oz that he might be able to make lightning strike twice by casting Shirley in a similar film. What ended up being created though was very different. “The Wizard of Oz” has some dark elements to it, such as the menacing Wicked Witch and Winged Monkeys, but overall, it is a jubilant and upbeat musical package wrapped up in a vivid technicolor bow. Released a few months later, “The Blue Bird” (1940) definitely ventured into darker areas than its MGM counterpart did.



To begin with, Shirley’s character, Mytyl, is a brat. Thoroughly unlikeable, Temple plays her with relish. This was confusing for audiences at that time as they expected to see Shirley spreading sunshine as she had in all of her past successes. Let’s call this Strike One.



Whereas “Oz” had many memorable musical numbers that were elaborately staged, “The Blue Bird” had only one musical number, “La-de-O,” which was about as simple as could be. At this stage of the game, Shirley was almost 12 years old; no longer a precocious and natural child, her acting had become a little stiff at times. Her dancing in this number appears as if she were at a student recital trying to do her best with a routine that was just beyond her capabilities. A “nice” number, but given the heavy nature of some of the material in this movie, audiences who expected to be uplifted by song and dance were deeply disappointed. We can call this Strike Two.



Last but not least, the promotion for this movie was also somewhat heavy. Going for an artistic and vague approach, the ads for the movie promised a rich and thought provoking cinematic experience. The artwork for the posters and advertisements was in the style of an Old World fairytale, which Fox believed would add a prestige and cerebral element to their motion picture that the “low-brow” “Wizard of Oz” lacked. Audiences of 1940 were just coming out of The Depression and entering World War II. They didn’t want something thought-provoking; they wanted a happy escape. “The Blue Bird” provided no escape. Yup...Strike Three.

On its initial release, “The Blue Bird” was called “Dead Pigeon” by its detractors. Audiences didn't get it, and most of them (even if they did get it) were less than amazed. Loss of the overseas market due to the War also sealed the fate of this movie which has always been known as the film that killed Shirley’s career.



Flash forward to today, and this film has definitely crept up in the respect department. Definitely not as bad as what critics labeled it to be in 1940, it really is a charming and beautiful film. At times, it does appear a little stage-like, but overall, definitely enjoyable (personally, I think “Susannah of the Mounties” (1939) is much worse!). Shirley gives a great performance as the bratty Mytyl, showing the depths of her talent when given a role that she liked. Gale Sondergaard, who turned down the part of the ugly Wicked Witch in “The Wizard of Oz,” is perfectly cast here as the evil yet glamorous feline villain. The technicolor is rich and the sets are marvelous; hard to forget the milk-white Land of the Unborn Children. Yes, slightly creepy in concept, but also very cool. Overall, this film stands on its own as fine family entertainment.

Order your own DVD at Amazon.com.

To see more “Blue Bird” photos, visit my regular website.

The Wizard of Oz: Even more glorious in Hi-Def

It’s definitely one of my favorite movies; the ethereal glow of Technicolor, the memorable music, the terrifying witch, and the pitch-perfect performance of Judy Garland who anchors the entire film. Each time it has been released on home video, I have been right there with my wallet: from bootleg, to VHS, to DVD, to Ultra-Resolution DVD, and now in High Definition on Blu-ray. The screen captures look amazing; plenty of film grain, bright colors, and razor-sharp detail (maybe just a hair too sharp...especially when it comes to the hairs on Margaret Hamilton’s chin!).





In the original book by L. Frank Baum, Dorothy’s shoes were silver; today, the original ruby-version manufactured for MGM back in 1938 can fetch close to $1 million. Would they have caused as much of a collecting furor if they had stayed silver? Even reproductions can fetch $500-$1000 each. And just where the heck would you wear them?!?





How many have marveled over the transition from sepia to technicolor when the movie goes from Kansas to Oz? Whether it was a creative or cost-cutting decision, it is still magical. The colors of Munchkinland leap off the screen even more because our eyes have been conditioned to the drab pallette of Kansas beforehand. Judy’s expression says it all:



Judy Garland is such perfection in this movie that not only is it hard to imagine anyone else in the role (even adorable Shirley Temple), but hard to imagine her as a blond Dorothy. That’s right; as this early publicity photo shows, Judy Garland was originally dolled up with a big slab of makeup and curly blond locks. Famous Hollywood Director George Cukor (assigned to the project for a very short time) left a lasting legacy on this 1939 classic by demanding that Judy have her plastic face removed so that she would be the one real element in the film—and boy was that a fantastic judgment call. Almost makes up for him screwing up Marilyn Monroe’s unfinished film “Something’s Got To Give.” Almost.



Order your Blu-ray copy of this national treasure at Amazon.com.

To see more Wizard of Oz photos, visit my regular website.