Borders, why do you put me through this?

Two purchases in one week?  Is that even possible?

As you've read in my earlier post, I was finally able to realize my dream of owning Andy Richter Controls the Universe on DVD.  But the DVD purchases didn't end there (Yeah, I bought Bolt, but because the SO wanted it, it is neither one of my purchases nor does it count against me in the DVD/Yarns and Shoe War I have with her).

We begin Thursday morning.  Just checking my e-mails when I stumble upon the usual garbage known as a Borders coupon e-mail.  Usually these contain coupons for 15 or 20 percent off an item.  I almost got duped by the 40% off one DVD box set a couple weeks back.  But I held out.  This e-mail's coupon, though, was too good not to use...

40% off any item, regardless of price!

Hallelujah, the DVD gods have been good to me for all the pains I've taken this week!

So what could I possibly use this on?  And how could I get the SO to allow this?  Ah, that is the key, for we both receive Borders e-mails, meaning she had a 40% off coupon as well.  Therefore, she would make a purchase as well.  Not a DVD purchase, but we'll forgive her for that.  Maybe.

Indeed, the obvious choice was the choice I almost made a couple weeks back with the earlier coupon: Amadeus.  Yes I have it on VHS, but this is Amadeus: Director's Cut.  With 5.1 Digital Surround Sound.  The music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart swarming all around me was so enticing, but was it worthy of such a coupon?  Was any movie able to garner my attention for such a priceless coupon (well, not really priceless, but it does mean less money I've spent on DVDs, which is a good thing... well, a good thing in that it means more money to spend on other DVDs!)

But then it dawned on me.  What was one of my future purchases that I really wanted?  That's right, White Heat.  Well, Borders didn't have it, but they did have The Public Enemy, another James Cagney movie and one that was an integral part of my gangster movie collection.  So sorry Wolfgang, I promise you one day you will be a part of my collection... in Blu-Ray!  Think about it, 7.1 Digital Surround Sound!  

So at the end of the day, $12 spent for one DVD.  This puts me in the red for the Fund, $5 to be exact.  I have to hold off now, unless I want to allow more money to be spent on yarn/shoes.  But I can't do that, so I'll just remain content with what I have... until my eye catches the next prize!  Later!

"You ain't heard nothing yet."

Well, it seems most relevant to watch a movie that I had made reference to in Friday's post.  And of course, thanks to TCM's 31 Days I could actually accomplish this goal.  No, I didn't watch Soul Man.  I'm pretty sure that movie has been buried along with E.T. the Video Game.

No, what I watched is one of those movies that screams "classic" (for a number of reasons, but I'll get into those later).  The first motion picture accompanied with sound, The Jazz Singer introduced us to the "talkie."  For most of you, you're probably like I was before seeing this movie, that a talkie meant the entire movie had sound.  You would be in the wrong.  Only those parts of the movie with actors singing did we actually get the "talking" part.  It's hard to trust Wikipedia on this subject, so I'm going to guess that the introduction of sound into movies was rather expensive, much like it is today to have IMAX cameras in use throughout the entire production.  Therefore, to cut costs and yet be profitable, only those important parts would actually have sound.  The most important parts of the film would most likely be with the actors singing, and that's what you have with The Jazz Singer.

Now that you know what the first "talkie" was like, in terms of... talking, the synopsis is rather simple.  In New York, a young Jewish boy Jakie Rabinowitz wishes to be an entertainer -  a jazz singer.  Father catches him in a jazz hall, and tells the boy he will follow in his father's footsteps, to be a Cantor in the Jewish Synagogue.  Boy runs away and the movie moves chronologically to some time later, Jakie is a grown up Jack Robin (Al Jolson) trying to make his name in Hollywood.  A few breaks go his way, and he lands in a Broadway revue in New York.  Jack goes back home to see his parents.  Mom is excited to see her, Father is not.  Father still wants him to be a Cantor, but Jack has his heart set on being a jazz singer.  Father gets ill, so Jack has to choose between doing the show or replacing his father as Cantor.  Jack at first chooses show biz, but chooses to be Cantor for one night.  Father professes his love for his son, and passes away as son sings in synagogue.  Son does blackface while singing in revue?

Confusing, I know.  Throughout the film, Jack sings but without having to paint his face so that he pretends to be an African American.  So why does he have to put on blackface on Broadway?  I'm guessing it could be explained the show he's doing calls for it, and because blackface wasn't an issue in 1927.  Still, it doesn't make sense why he has to do this.  Jack is just fine singing without it, and it actually diminishes the appeal for the movie.  Without it, it's a fine picture.  With blackface, I feel disgusted.

So what did I learn from this movie?  A "talkie" doesn't mean there's sound throughout, blackface obviously meant earning more money at the box office in the late 1920s, and Jewish humor always makes a movie that much better.  Although I'm not personally Jewish, the SO likes to think I am with the way I always have to pick up change from the ground.  Seriously, it adds up!  And in this day and age, it can mean a huge difference.  I'm just saying...

So The Jazz Singer was something to watch, mostly from the historical aspect and for what it did to the film industry, but it will not need to be included in my DVD collection.  At the rate I'm going with watching the films from TCM'S 31 Days, I'll be waking up early for quite a few more Saturdays just to clean out the DVR.  But it will be worth it, mostly so I know whether or not I would like to own these movies!  Just kidding.  Gotta save money for all those Future Purchases...

Just one more post for this weekend to go.  And it's a doozy of a film, something that really warms the soul, like a large glass of wine (wink wink).  Later!

"After all, a lot of people are going to think we are a shocking pair"

No, this post isn't about the SO and me.  It's actually about the movie we watched this weekend, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.  And even though it's the umpteenth time I've watched it, the movie still remains poignant to me, as the SO and I are definitely the odd couple.  But about the movie...

It's obvious from the introduction of the interracial couple, played by Sidney Poitier (as Dr. John Prentice) and Katharine Houghton (as Joanna "Joey" Drayton), that this movie would be about that exact issue.  Even though the recent remake of the movie flopped because many think it's a dead issue, there still remains an air of ignorance on the part of the world about a mixed couple.  Set in San Francisco in 1967, one of the liberal focal points in America during the '60s and still today, the movie opens up with the couple getting into a taxi, with the driver giving a look of uneasiness, as the couple kisses.

What really stands out from this movie is how Joey's parents, Matt (Spencer Tracy) and Christina (Katharine Hepburn) Drayton, react to the couple and how quickly everything moves in that relationship.  As liberal as Matt may be, he still appears to be an "old stubborn mule" when it comes to his own daughter's love life.  For a person to fight for the people's rights, Matt has a hard time practicing what he preaches.  Chrstina, shocked at first, seems to come around a lot sooner than her husband.  The Draytons' personal cook Tillie (Isabel Sanford), a black woman, has a hard time with the couple, maybe because the relationship is too new, maybe because of the issues the couple will face in the world, or possibly because she thinks John is trying to be better than other blacks.  So, not only does the movie touch on black-and-white racism, but also black-on-black racism.

As much as Joey is the ultimate vision of the flower child of the '60s, interracial unions were still illegal in 17 states in 1967, until the Supreme Court ruled on Loving v. Virginia.  Joey seems very elated about her love for John, but appears so naive about what lies ahead for them.  Poitier's portrayal of Dr. Prentice makes him seem very emotional, even taking it out verbally on his father.  The key character, to me, is Monsignor Ryan (Cecil Kellaway), a dear friend of the Draytons and a member of the Church (which can be viewed as very conservative to many) who is probably the most understanding character in the entire movie.  He makes Matt look like Rush Limbaugh (and that's saying something if you understand Matt's character).

Ultimately, John weighs his decision to marry Joey (which is scheduled to happen a week later in Geneva) on how Matt feels on the issue.  Being the sensitive guy that he is, John wants the approval of his future bride-to-be's father, especially under the circumstances of the time.  In the end, Matt (Spencer Tracy's last scene on screen before his passing 17 days after filming) says it's not up to him or Christina or John's parents (who show up for dinner after flying from Los Angeles that afternoon) or anyone else in the world.  It's up to John and Joey and how much they love each other that should affect if they get married.  In one long afternoon/evening, we learn that for as much approval that John wanted, in the end all that mattered was that he loved Joey and she loved him.  And if they loved each other as half as much as Matt and Christina, then they would have a long time together, in love.

In the end of this post (a very short one, but I have a reason for that...described in the next post!), it comes down to this.  This movie was one of the first "classic" movies that my SO and I sat down to watch together.  The SO doesn't really care for movies (mostly because her attention span rivals any Ritalin-laden teenager) and especially gets bored of "classic" (i.e. movies from decades ago) films, so I was really surprised she took a liking to this movie.  For that, I would say it's a keeper.  What do you think?  Do you agree that it's a keeper? Or should it be ceremoniously left out of the DVD collection?  Let me know in the comments.  In a short while, I'll get to writing the post about today's adventure in the apartment, but until then...Later!