BE BACK SUNDAY!

THE ALL-TIME BEST PALMISTRY BOOK...LOST!

A few weeks ago I read part of a palmistry book, not just any palmistry book but a really neat one that emphasized the horrific aspects. It was full of dire warnings lest you ever encounter someone who has airspaces between the bottoms of their fingers (a serial killer) or fourth fingers longer than the third (chronic misfits). What a find! I thought it would be a great subject for a blog!

Unfortunately in an addled state I returned it unfinished to the library to avoid paying a ten cent fine. Now I've recovered my senses but I can't remember the name of the book or which branch I got it from. Too bad! Anyway, I'm not likely to get it back any time soon so I thought I'd post the doodles I did while reading it. Here they are....

MY ANALYSIS OF THE "NAKED CITY" CLIP

Alright, I watched the chase clip ("Naked City," above) again and here's my very tentative analysis....

The villain represents evil, an evil that had successfully hid itself inside the body of the city, but which is now isolated and squeezed out into the outside world. I love the opening shot: the evil demon is now isolated against the huge abstraction of the white billboard. He'd like to ferret back into the city again but he can't, it won't accept him. He runs into an arcade of some sort but the crowd goes about its own business and offers him no shelter. He adjusts his hat on the way out but I like to think that he's tipping his hat to the ladies, pathetically trying to ingratiate himself, but that no longer works.

On the sidewalk we track along with him as he takes big, confident strides down the streets. I LOVE tracking shots like this! That technique helped to kill film comedy but it was a big shot in the arm for drama. Now we see evil in it's full glory, confident and contmptuous of the human beings surrounding it. But he has to stop to pretend to look at a tie...maybe he's not as in control as he thought. A policeman rudely stops him in his tracks. The humans have the upper hand! From this point on we think of him as a fox frantically fleeing the hounds, his doom pre-destined.

He enters the enclosed stairway leading up to the bridge, a Joseph Cambell-type symbol for gates of Hell. The gates are guarded by a dog which bites him...more Cambell! He shoots the dog and runs up onto the wide bridge walkway. People run out of his way, everybody knows he's evil now. The music is frenetic! In what I consider the best shot of the film we see him running away from the distant city down the surreal landscape of a vast, concrete runway. The sheltering city is closed to him now. The fool thinks he can escape into Hell!

Well, the clip ends there, just about. That's my take on it.

NAKED CITY

One of my favorite 50s crime films is "Naked City" starring my namesake Barry Fitzgerald. The brilliant 15-minute opening narration is unavailable on YouTube but I thought I'd put up a couple of clips from the long chase sequence at the end.


The half-minute clip above is the from the playground sequence where a cop asks a kid if she knows where the villain lives. It's here because it illustrates how important it is to pack a live-action film (not an animated one) with extras. If you're making a film, even an amateur film just for fun, cram every relative and friend you can find into the background. And use deep perspective when it fits. Don't shoot everything against a wall! Film teacher Bruce Block has some interesting opinions on this subject but that's a topic for another time.





Here's (above) part of the famous chase scene, made more famous by the lengthy discussion of it in the Karel Reiz book, "Technique of Film Editing." A whole generation of filmmakers learned their craft from this book. Don't rush out to buy it because there's probably better books on the shelves now.

I'm dying to try a commentary on a few scenes but I'm sleepy and it would take more thought than I can give it now. I get the feeling that there's an interesting sub-text going on but I can't figure it out what it is. OK, the city's like a character and the villain's like an animal running away from tormenters, but there seems to be more than that here. What do you think?

WHAT WOMEN TALK ABOUT WHEN MEN AREN'T AROUND

Magnolia: "It's so nice here! Isn't it great to be away from men for a while?"

Mildred: "You bet! We can finally do the kinds of things WE like to do! Uh...Gladys, the ball's over here."

Petunia: "Oooo, look! A bus transfer!

Violet: "Yeah, men always want to talk about sex! Everything to them is phallic!"

Rodneyetta: "Violet, what are we going to do with you? You're so naive!"

Queen Elizabeth: "Hi girls! Do you mind if I hang out with you for a while? It's ever so stuffy in the palace!"

Magnolia: "(Gasp!) It's the Queen! And she's hanging out with us!!! Why that's...Uh, oh......Oh, dear..........Oh, no............" BRAAAAAP!!!

Mildred: "OH Jeez, Magnolia!



Gladys: "That darn Magnolia! She should do what I do. Whenever I want to do something gross like smell my armpits, I go behind a rock and do it in the shadows."


MILDRED: "We better go, girls! We have to get back to the Theory Mansion! Mike's going to be there tonight!

VIOLET: "Mike!?  You mean the world-famous cartoonist studmuffin?! I'm there!"

WAS RUBE GOLDBERG "PRIMITIVE?"

Did Rube Goldberg work in a primitive style!!??? Absolutely not!!!!!!! He was working in a deliberately comedic style, one of the most sophisticated and effective styles in all of cartoon history!

Poor Rube is always lumped together with Bud Fisher's "Mutt and Jeff" (the long, narrow strip above). Fisher was a funny and creative artist in his prime but he was never as funny, as innovative or as warm and "human" as Goldberg.

Goldberg had more in common with Milt Gross (no example here). Both were funny as hell and both seemed to love the people they were making fun of. I don't know about you but I find Goldberg's bottom two pictures of couples (above) to be extremely tender and appealing at the same time they're caricatured. Bud Fisher couldn't touch stuff like this.

So, is Goldberg's style primitive? No!!! If the purpose of a cartoon is to get laughs then this style is shockingly efficient. The audience is already smiling before they read the caption. If any style can be called primitive it's the modern style (with very notable exceptions), which simply doesn't deliver the comedic goods.

One last look at Goldberg (above) ...(Sigh!) and I turn you back to the modern comedic style below.

Note: I know the guy who did the color drawings above. He's a talented guy and he'd probably jump at the chance to work on something genuinely funny.

SHOULD I PUT UP ADS?

WRIGGLE'S SPEARMINT GUM!


OK, this isn't one of my better efforts. I really should have redone it before posting it but, honestly, if I'd done that then I'd end up redoing everything I put up and I'd loose interest in blogging. The only way I've been able to do this on a daily basis is to put up my first or first and a half try and just hope for the best. (Sigh!)