Love Is Strange

Year 18, Day 63 - 3/4/26 - Movie #5,263

BEFORE: I'm going out tonight to an NYU alumni event, just a little get-together in Manhattan, so if I'm late posting tonight, that's why, I maybe came home full of hors d'oeuvres and drinks and went straight to bed - 

Alfred Molina carries over from "Enchanted April".

Tomorrow, Thursday, March 5 is day 20 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, and the themes are "Oscar Goes to Book Club" and "Oscar Goes Into Politics". Here's the line-up:

6:00 am "A Farewell to Arms" (1932)

7:30 am "Of Mice and Men" (1939)

9:30 am "A Tale of Two Cities" (1935)

11:45 am "Great Expectations" (1946)

1:45 pm "Tom Jones" (1963)

4:00 pm "Madame Bovary" (1949)

6:00 pm "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (1945)

8:00 pm "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939)

10:15 pm "The Great McGinty" (1940)

12:00 am "Seven Days in May" (1964)

2:15 am "The Fog of War" (2003)

4:15 am "The Candidate" (1972)

Well, I've managed to watch the WRONG versions of a lot of these films, the remakes, in other words, which were of course less likely to receive Oscar nominations. I recently watched more recent versions of "Of Mice and Men" and "Great Expectations", just not the versions that TCM is focused on, aka the classic ones. But I've seen "Tom Jones" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", and "The Candidate", plus I watched "The Fog of War" in one of my Doc Blocks. So another four today, which brings me to 98 seen out of 235, or 41.7%. Statistically with just 11 days to go I think I've leveled off, it would take a complete sweep or a complete blow-out to really move the needle now.

THE PLOT: After Ben and George get married, George is fired from his teaching post, forcing them to stay with friends separately while they look for cheaper housing - a situation that weighs heavily on all involved. 

AFTER: This story feels like it had to come from real life - most likely the writer/director had a gay uncle who maybe lost his apartment for a similar reason. The nephew character here is some kind of filmmaker, so that could easily be the character that represents the director, Ira Sachs. Yeah, you learn to spot that sort of thing after watching a few thousand movies. The details on HOW this gay couple lost their co-op apartment are so specific, it feels like it really happened to someone. 

The chain of events, of course, was probably kicked off by the legalization of gay marriage. I still LOVE the story about how this became legal across the country, it happened because while some states had settled on a "domestic partnership" compromise, where long-term gay couples could share benefits without any of the downsides of marriage, however conservatives passed the Defense of Marriage Act to ban gay marriage at the federal level, and this was deemed to be unconstitutional. And therefore, using reverse logic, if it's illegal to ban gay marriage, then by default it's legal! Perhaps this is an over-simplification of what occurred, but I think it's still darn elegant. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantee equal protection and due process to all citizens, and therefore DOMA was repealed and the legal argument made in 2003 that government cannot discriminate against marriage on the basis of gender was therefore expanded to the whole country. 

But there had to be some ramifications somewhere - in 2015 naturally there was a sudden wave of gay people getting married, some of whom had been waiting a very long time. For a select few, perhaps the legislation made no difference and some people just continued in their long domestic partnerships - like if you didn't care BEFORE what the government thought about your gay relationship, why should you care AFTER the legislation was passed? But whatever, there were a bunch of happy brides with brides and grooms with grooms. The caterers and cake designers were probably also very happy about the uptick in business, not to mention gay divorce lawyers. Yes, if there's going to be gay marriages there will be gay divorces, gay alimony, gay custody battles.  

In this film, we have George, a music teacher who finally marries his long-term partner Ben, however George teaches in a Catholic school, which sees fit to fire him because his lifestyle does not match with the teachings of the church. This has a domino effect and Ben and George can no longer afford their West Village co-op apartment, so they have to sell it at a penalty and look for a new place to live. The "flip tax" mentioned here is a very specific thing, which reinforces my belief that all of this really happened to some screenwriter's uncle. What George SHOULD have done is immediately contact a lawyer, because firing someone on the basis of their sexual orientation is probably illegal, even for the Catholic Church. Even if he couldn't keep his job, George could have received a settlement and walked away with enough money to buy a house somewhere or a Manhattan condo. A better real-estate lawyer could have fought the flip tax, too.

The couple gets on the waiting list for affordable housing and then splits up, with Ben going to live with his nephew's family in Brooklyn, and George moving in with their former neighbors, a younger gay couple that is also NYPD cops who like to party and play D&D with their friends until the wee hours of the morning. Sure, the situation is hardly ideal, and probably exaggerated here for comic effect, in another edition of "What Could Possibly Go Wrong" where everything, of course, goes very wrong. 

There were other answers, though, they just wouldn't have been so funny or so tragic. They could have stayed together if they just took the first apartment they could find, or they could have moved to Florida or Pennsylvania or something, but no, they're New Yorkers and some of those people would never, ever move out of the city. They wouldn't even move up to Poughkeepsie to live with another member of Ben's family, even though she had a big house with a spare room for them - but hell no, it's Poughkeepsie and I get why they didn't want to go there. It's at least a 2-hour drive, and that's with no traffic. You know, parts of Long Island are very nice, just saying, and there are some nice restaurants out there, four or five Chinese buffets. 

Instead, Ben moves in with his nephew, his wife and their teenage son, and shares bunk beds with that son. Umm, NITPICK POINT: why did they have bunk beds if they only had one son? Most people only buy bunk beds if they have multiple children, nobody really buys bunk beds because they think their kid might have a sleepover someday, right? Anyway, Ben is always underfoot and chatty when Kate is trying to right, and Joey is always hanging out with this weird kid named Vlad, we don't know if they're skateboarding together or doing drugs together or being gay together, they're at that weird age when everything and anything is possible and fun as long as their parents will hate it. Meanwhile George continues giving private piano lessons and looks for a new job at a new school, instead of hiring a lawyer to sue the Catholic Church for firing him.  

Kate suggests that Ben take up painting again, so he paints a portrait of Vlad on the roof of their building, but later falls down the stairs coming down from the roof. He injures his arm, so there goes the idea of him going up on the roof to paint and staying out of Kate's way. Then there's a weird subplot about Joey and Vlad stealing books from the school library, it doesn't make much sense or it's never really fully explained, whichever. George meets a man at a party thrown in the apartment he's living in, and that man turns him on to a rent-controlled apartment that he's living in but has to give up soon. This would seem to be the answer to their problem over where to live, but it's really too small for two people, and then further tragedy strikes. Well, you know, into each life a little rain must fall and such. 

Directed by Ira Sachs

Also starring John Lithgow (last seen in "Conclave"), Marisa Tomei (last seen in "Love the Coopers"), Charlie Tahan (last seen in "A Complete Unknown"), Cheyenne Jackson (last seen in "United 93"), Harriet Sansom Harris (last seen in "Monster-in-Law"), Darren Burrows (last seen in "Amistad"), Christian Coulson (last seen in "The Four Feathers"), John Cullum (last seen in "Kill Your Darlings"), Adriane Lenox (last seen in "The United States vs. Billie Holiday"), Manny Perez (last seen in "Courage Under Fire"), Sebastian La Cause (last seen in "Eraser"), Christina Kirk (last seen in "Melinda and Melinda"), Tatyana Zbirovskaya, Olya Zueva (last seen in "Salt"), Jason Stuart (last seen in "Outstanding: A Comedy Revolution"), Eric Tabach, Tank Burt, Daphne Gaines, Christopher King (last seen in "Going the Distance"), Maryann Urbano (last seen in "Babygirl"), David Bell, Henry Crouch, Jeff Goad, Dovie Currin, Ira Spaulding, Andrew Polk (last seen in "Armageddon Time"), Jim Newman, Michael J. Burg (last seen in "BlacKkKlansman"), Josephine Pizzino (last seen in "Birdman"), Alexander W. Smith

RATING: 6 out of 10 late night phone calls

Enchanted April

Year 18, Day 62 - 3/3/26 - Movie #5,262

BEFORE: Miranda Richardson carries over from "The Prince & Me" and this enables another Birthday SHOUT-out since she was born on March 3, 1958. There haven't been as many SHOUT-outs this year as usual, I think mainly this is due to more films with smaller casts - fewer actors, less chance of landing a film on someone's birthday, it's just math. I could have dropped in "The Evening Star" here and made a Miranda Richardson triple-play, but I think I need that film to make my links next time around, so again I'm holding one back, and I'll follow a different link tomorrow. 

But considering that one of the TCM "31 Days of Oscar" themes today is "Oscar Goes on a Trip", I think my film choice today is in sync with that. This film covers much the same ground as "A Passage to India" or "The Wings of the Dove", in that it's just a simple, classic story about British people going on vacation. 

Tomorrow is Day 19, and the themes for Wednesday, March 4 are "Oscar Goes South of the Border" and "Oscar Goes Home". Here are the films: 

6:30 am "Juarez" (1939)

8:45 am "Fiesta" (1947)

10:30 am "The Champ" (1931)

12:00 pm "The Brave One" (1956)

2:00 pm "Cowboy" (1958)

3:45 pm "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" (1948)

6:00 pm "The Night of the Iguana" (1964)

8:00 pm "The Best Years of Our Lives" (1948)

11:00 pm "Sweet Bird of Youth" (1962)

1:15 am "Volver" (2006)

3:30 am "Some Came Running" (1958)

That's another five that I've seen: "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", "The Night of the Iguana", "The Best Years of Our Lives", "Volver" and "Some Came Running", which brings me up to 94 seen out of 223. Just over 42% overall, which I think is a decent score. 

THE PLOT: After World War I, four English women who are unhappy with their lives spend some time away on vacation in a beautiful Italian villa. 

AFTER: It sure seems like Italy is the hot destination this time around, at least in the "classics" division - "The Wings of the Dove", "Much Ado About Nothing" and now this one are all set there, while the French Riviera and Monaco have been visited too, in "The Love Punch" and "The House of Mirth". One thing is clear, that the citizens of the U.K. definitely want to go on vacation when they're in a romantic mood. Who can blame them, when London is so rainy in March, why wouldn't they want to head off to Italy for the month of April? Yes, yes, of course I know it's March and I've placed this in the "wrong" month, but this is where the linking clearly wants the film to be. Let's assume that it's March when our characters start planning their Italian holiday, OK? They've got to plan the trip, back around World War I this would have meant taking a train to the coast and then boarding a small ship across the English channel, right? And then some kind of train on the other side to get to Italy. 

Back then it was a long journey - two of the four women staying at the San Salvatore got their first, the older woman, Mrs. Fisher, and the wealthy and beautiful Caroline Dester. Lotty Wilkins and Rose Arbuthnot must have left later, well in addition to packing they had to run the trip by their husbands first. For Rose this wasn't too difficult, because her husband had just written a new erotic novel (under a pseudonym) and wanted to go on a book tour to promote it. One gets the feeling that he probably was getting a little something on the side after the book signings at ladies clubs, another reason to not use his real name, this way he could keep his affairs off of his wife's radar. Lotty had a bigger problem, breaking the news to her husband, Mellersh, that she wanted to spend a month in Italy. Mellersh had been keeping Lotty on a tight leash, making her write down all of her expenses, yet still she found a way to divert 15 pounds to rent 1/4 of the Italian villa. However, Mellersh surprised her with the idea of an Italian holiday for them both, just before she was going to break the news that she wanted to go there by herself. 

This film maybe shows the beginning of the AirBnB concept, Londoner and oboe player George Briggs owns the Italian villa, and since he was going out on tour he decided to post an advert in the newspaper, offering up San Salvatore for April for 60 pounds. (shillings? was that the same thing? Then what were "quid"?). Anyway Lotty and Rose got the idea to take the month off, and then found two other women willing to help with the expenses. Once they all arrived in Italy, they had to decide who should get which bedroom, and what to do with the extra beds - the single ladies didn't need them, and so they ended up in the rooms of the married women. This plot point could be important later, especially if their husbands should turn up unexpectedly. 

Three of the four women just want to sit in lounge chairs and relax, or lie down on the beach or on some nearby rocks and just clear their minds.  Sure, that's what a vacation is for, but that doesn't exactly lend itself to the most exciting movies. Do I want to watch British women just remaining still for 95 minutes? Of course not, it seems incredibly boring, even if that's how they want to spend the month of April. So this situation needed to be shaken up. After a few days of being bossed around by Mrs. Fisher, Lotty decides to invite her husband, Mellersh, by letter and encourages Rose to invite hers. Perhaps they could both repair their marriages if they could just get their husbands on vacation and get them to relax, too. Sure, it's not like married people fight while they're on vacation...

Mellersh shows up first, because he couldn't wait to network with Mrs. Fisher and Lady Caroline, as they both have a lot of money, and he views them as prospective clients. Mellersh promptly causes some kind of explosion of the hot water heater in the bathroom, and is therefore wearing only a towel and a lot of soot when he meets the other ladies. Rose's husband shows up a few days later, but he never got the letter from Rose, it seems he came there to hook up with Lady Caroline, who is a fan of his erotic stories. Well, I guess somebody had to be - but the trip apparently took a lot out of him, because he falls asleep before he can sleep with Lady Caroline and instead is found dozing in the hallway by his own wife, Rose, who assumes that he came in response to her letter. Well, once in a while in these bedroom farces I suppose somebody does actually screw up and end up sleeping with their own wife, purely by accident. 

Meanwhile, the owner of the villa, George Briggs, turns up and is surprised to find four (no, wait, six) people enjoying the accommodations, when he rented it to only TWO. All is forgiven when he becomes attracted to Rose, who he assumed was a war widow, you know, because there were so many of those after WWI ended. What an opportune time it must have been to be a man in London with so many lonely widows around... Caroline wonders why Briggs didn't focus more on her, but it turns out he's got very bad eyesight due to a war injury. But when he learns that Rose has a living husband, who is also THERE, he switches over to Caroline, and she knows that it's true love because it's not based on her looks, Briggs enjoys talking to her. OK, whatever, everybody kind of gets paired up, except for Mrs. Fisher, but it's OK, she's old. But at least she made some new friends by traveling to Italy.  

This film did get three Oscar nominations (Supporting Actress, Costume Design and Adapted Screenplay) but did not win in any category.  It did win a couple Golden Globes and a NY Film Critics Award, I guess that's something. There's just one love quadrangle that totally gets resolved rather quickly, so overall that's not very complicated. It was originally made for TV and shot on 16mm, but the result was so good that it was transferred to 35mm and released theatrically. It's based on a novel by Elizabeth von Arnim, and they shot much of the film on location in Portofino, Italy, in the same castle where the author stayed when she wrote the book. That's pretty cool...

Directed by Mike Newell (director of "The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society" and "Mona Lisa Smile")

Also starring Josie Lawrence, Alfred Molina (last seen in "Not Without My Daughter"), Neville Phillips (last seen in "Carrington"), Jim Broadbent (last seen in "Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy"), Michael Kitchen (last seen in "Proof of Life"), Joan Plowright (last seen in "The Spiderwick Chronicles"), Polly Walker (last seen in "Emma"), Stephen Beckett, Matthew Radford, Davide Manuli, Vittorio Duse, Adriana Facchetti, Anna Longhi (last seen in "The Talented Mr. Ripley")

RATING: 5 out of 10 famous authors Mrs. Fisher once met

The Prince & Me

Year 18, Day 61 - 3/2/26 - Movie #5,261

BEFORE: Julia Stiles carries over from "Save the Last Dance", and there are another two Julia Stiles movies on my list that could have fit in here, however I don't have room for them, and also they have been deemed to make an important connection between other films on the list, so they have been tabled until next year. I have a possible chain for next time that is 21 movies long, and other smaller ones that are five, seven or two films long, maybe I can connect some of those and fill up February of 2027 - but that will be harder if I watch those other Julia Stiles films this year, OK? This film's been on my list for a while, I think it was on that crashed DVR that I had to return, but when I got the replacement DVR a year ago the film was still running on cable so I just re-recorded it. I'll try to get it burned on to a DVD now that I've watched it. 

This is the third film of this year with James Fox in it, though - but leading the pack right now is Celia Imrie with 5 appearances, she's someone who usually plays non-lead characters, but once you see her in British films, you'll notice her a lot. I know her, of course, for playing a Naboo pilot in "Star Wars: Episode I" but I don't have her autograph yet, and I probably should work on that. 

Here's the line up for tomorrow, Tuesday, March 3, Day 18 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar", and the themes are "Oscar Goes on the Air" and "Oscar Goes on a Trip":

6:00 am "Mr. Dodd Takes the Air" (1937)

7:45 am "Foreign Correspondent" (1940)

10:00 am "It's Always Fair Weather" (1955)

12:00 pm "It Should Happen to You" (1954)

1:45 pm "Being There" (1979)

4:00 pm "My Favorite Year" (1982)

6:00 pm "The Sunshine Boys" (1975)

8:00 pm "Around the World in 80 Days" (1956)

11:15 pm "A Passage to India" (1984)

2:15 am "The Man Who Knew Too Much" (1956)

4:30 am "A Little Romance" (1979)

I think I'm hitting for SEVEN today - since I've seen all the Hitchcock movies, that's "Foreign Correspondent" and "The Man Who Knew Too Much", plus I've seen "Being There", "My Favorite Year", "The Sunshine Boys", "Around the World in 80 Days" and "A Passage to India". So this has to improve my standings, I'm now at 89 seen out of 212, that's just under 42% now!

THE PLOT: At college Paige meets Eddie, a student from Denmark, whom she first dislikes but later accepts, likes and loves; he turns out to be Crown Prince Edvard. Paige follows him to Copenhagen and he follows her back to school with a plan. 

AFTER: I'm somewhat torn on this one, because at its heart it's the last gasp of the patriarchy, like even in 2004, how could someone make a "prince falls in love with a regular girl and takes her away from her commoner life" movie? At that point in time, we should have been over all the Cinderella or Snow White fantasies, exemplified in Disney movies where characters sing "Someday, My Prince Will Come". Like, come on, women can vote now and get jobs, we had equal rights legislation and almost an amendment, women are doctors and senators and they're not just dating to get into a higher tax bracket, or to be "rescued", this all should have gone the way of the dinosaur. And the film acts like it KNOWS this, because Paige is in college with hopes of applying to medical school, and she's not dating anyone, and that's by choice. She's complete as she is, no need for a relationship to make her feel "whole". 

But even though the relationship is rocky at first because of how chauvinist "Eddie" is, he turns up as her lab partner, as her co-worker, and she's forced to train him how to slice deli meats, and he slowly wins her over by virtue of spending so much time together. And when the paparazzi eventually track the errant Prince down and take photos of the two of them making out in the library, her first reaction after finding out that he's a Danish prince isn't, "Oh, wow, what an opportunity!" but instead she's mad because he lied about it. Yes, a lie of omission is still a lie. Even more surprising is that she takes him back after that, I guess she starts to see how dating a price could open some doors for her, socially and financially.  Their studying alliance is still solid, where she helps him pass chemistry and he gives her some unique insight into Shakespeare's "Hamlet" - you know, being a Danish prince himself, who could know better about what's going on in Hamlet's brain? 

It wasn't just on-the-job cold cut slicing that Eddie had to learn, he was way off about American culture, as all he knew about it was that American women are likely to take their tops off during spring break or Mardi Gras. That's probably why he wanted to come to America in the first place, though he told his parents that he wanted an American education, and to learn more about how the working class operates. What a bunch of B.S., but it got him to Wisconsin, with his butler in tow. NITPICK POINT: I would have to imagine that special diplomatic arrangements would have to be made for a foreign prince to study at an American university, and the college HAD to know about this, because they gave him a dorm room with bunk beds so his butler would have a place to sleep. Don't you think the news about a European prince attending an American college would leak out at some point, or the college would want to use this information to promote itself? 

We also don't quite know how the paparazzi tracked Eddie down in Wisconsin, only that they were getting bored covering the King's press conferences and not Prince Edvard's torrid affairs. So that's N.P. #2 I guess, because the film doesn't tell us this, the photographers just show up one day - it would have made sense if there had been an American news story about the infamous "lawnmower races" in Wisconsin over Thanksgiving weekend, and if the foreign press had picked up the story, someone in Denmark might have recognized him, that could have been one way to go. 

But we'll never know, because Edvard is called home to Denmark right after finals, because his father, King Haraald, is very sick. He wants to abdicate the throne and crown his son as the new King, but this process apparently takes a while. While giving an oral exam about Shakespeare (NP #3: I thought oral exams were only part of a masters degree, not a basic bachelor's level literature class...) Paige is reminded during a discussion of "Othello" that she loves Eddie, and so she books an expensive flight to Denmark with the help of her friends. Bear in mind this film was made before we had Kayak, Travelocity or even Priceline... 

The king's advice to Eddie is that if he loves Paige, he should marry her for love, it's a better fit than trying to find an available princess somewhere in the world, anyway the arranged marriage thing seems even more outdated than the monarchy itself. The queen is against Eddie marrying a commoner, however after she witnesses her son solving a labor dispute by quoting what he learned on Paige's family's farm, she changes her mind and not only approves of the marriage, but grants Paige access to the royal jewels to wear during the coronation ball. This part is really just female porn, wish fulfillment to have access to very expensive jewelry without having to pay for it. And to have royal dressmakers make her a gown, to have servants ready to make her whatever food she wants to eat whenever she wants it. Sure, a girl could get used to this kind of treatment, I know I could. 

But eventually Paige remembers that she set out to become a doctor working in impoverished countries, and feels that by becoming a princess, she would be betraying herself and not following through with her own career. The acceptance letter from Johns Hopkins that falls on the floor, unread, is just one of several plot threads that never really gets followed up throughout the movie. Anyway, Paige breaks off the engagement and goes back home, and so Denmark is left with a very sad, lonely king. For a while, anyway, because Eddie realizes that it's not the 1600's any more, and that he can wait for Paige to become a doctor or spend time in a Third World country and that a woman's dreams are important, too.  

The problem here is that the film tries to have it both ways, you can't play the wish fulfillment card and have the rich European prince swoop in and rescue the commoner AND also portray a woman who doesn't need rescuing, suggesting that the old ways of the monarchy and patriarchy are a thing of the past. Can falling in love with a prince be both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time? Perhaps, but why make this so much more complicated than it needs to be?  If she can be both a doctor and a princess and that's an obvious fact, why does it take so long for them to figure this out? Why not become a princess first and then use her position to study medicine? They probably have decent medical schools in Copenhagen, why isn't that an option? Or Paige can use her position as a princess to support or fund medical research, which would also be quite helpful? Jesus, if you have the chance to be married to a prince, take the damn win!

The story also calls to mind the story of Meghan Markle, who met Prince Harry in 2016. Although she was famous for being on two TV series and appearing in a couple movies, still she was considered a "commoner" as far as the U.K.'s royal family was concerned. She seems to have taken to the whole Duchess thing, so this 2005 film kind of got something right in advance - it happens. Both "Save the Last Dance" and tonight's film have sequels that DO NOT feature Julia Stiles, so obviously I'm skipping them. The chain must remain unbroken. 

Directed by Martha Coolidge (director of "Introducing Dorothy Dandridge")

Also starring Luke Mably (last seen in "28 Days Later"), Ben Miller (last seen in "Birthday Girl"), Miranda Richardson (last heard in "Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget"), James Fox (last seen in "The Double"), Alberta Watson (last seen in "The Lookout"), John Bourgeois (last seen in "X-Men: Apocalypse"), Zachary Knighton (last seen in "Come and Find Me"), Stephen O'Reilly, Elisabeth Waterston, Eliza Bennett (last seen in "Nanny McPhee"), Devin Ratray (last seen in "Side Effects"), Clare Preuss (last seen in "Loser"), Yaani King (last seen in "In the Cut"), Eddie Irvine, Angelo Tsarouchas (last seen in "The Recruit"), Jacques Tourangeau, Joanne Baron (last seen in "Introducing Dorothy Dandridge"), Stephen Singer (last seen in "Obvious Child"), Sarah Manninen, Tony Munch (last seen in "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day"), John Nelles (last seen in "Molly's Game"), Claus Bue, James McGowan (last seen in "Suicide Squad"), Jean Pearson, Dagmar Blahova, Henrik Jandorf, Niels Anders Thorn, Jesper Asholt, Andrea Veresova, Winter Ave Zoli (last seen in "Father Stu"), Jennifer Roberts Smith, Zdenek Maryska, Garth Hewitt, Dana Reznik (last seen in "How to Deal"), Amy Stewart, Richard Lee, Robert Russel, Go Go Jean Michel Francis, Michael McLachlan, Patricia Netzer, Andrea Miltner (last seen in "Nosferatu"), Jennifer Vey (last seen in "Get Over It").

RATING: 5 out of 10 different types of turkey in the cold cut section (regular, honey, BBQ, cracked pepper, cajun, hickory-smoked, Salsalito, low-fat, low-sodium and gluten-free)

Save the Last Dance

Year 18, Day 60 - 3/1/26 - Movie #5,260

BEFORE: February is over, but the romance chain still has a way to go - two more weeks at least. That damn Romance Groundhog saw his shadow this year, so we won't be ending this chain any time soon. Some more classics to get off the list, and maybe a couple of weird ones coming up in March. As promised, here are the actor links that will get me to the end of the romance chain: Julia Stiles, Miranda Richardson, Alfred Molina, Marisa Tomei, Claudia Wilkens, Amy Adams, Matthew Perry, Jon Tenney, Sean Bridgers, Jean Smart, Hayley Seat, Chris Pine, Lindsay Lohan, Jane Seymour and Parker Sawyers. I wish I could tell you what's going to happen after that but I can't, because I have no idea. I should probably work on that. 

But I've finally gotten in sync with TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, their topic today was "Oscar Goes Dancing" and my film today is about dancing, too. How about that? Now here's their line-up for tomorrow, March 2, which will be their Day 17, and the themes are "Oscar Goes on the Run" and "Oscar Goes a Few Rounds":

6:00 am "Algiers" (1938)

8:00 am "Odd Man Out" (1947)

10:00 am "Logan's Run" (1976)

12:00 pm "Running on Empty" (1988)

2:00 pm "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" (1932)

3:45 pm "The Defiant Ones" (1958)

5:30 pm "North by Northwest" (1959)

8:00 pm "The Harder They Fall" (1956)

10:00 pm "Fat City" (1972)

12:00 am "Champion" (1949)

2:00 am "Golden Boy" (1939)

4:00 am "Somebody Up There Likes Me" (1956)

Well, damn, I think I've only seen four of these: "Logan's Run", "The Defiant Ones", "North by Northwest" and "Somebody Up There Likes Me". Now, I've seen a lot of boxing movies but I just haven't seen THESE boxing movies. And I guess since I watched "The Defiant Ones" I felt no need to watch "I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang" - it's the same movie, right? Anyway, another four seen out of 12 brings me up to 82 seen out of 201, which is just 40.7%. I have a good feeling about tomorrow, though. 

THE PLOT: A white midwestern girl moves from the Chicago suburbs to the city, where her new boyfriend is a black teen from the South Side with a rough, semi-criminal past. 

AFTER: There's a reason I'm programming this film here, you know, this film has a reputation as a classic film made by MTV Films for the MTV generation, which is now officially OVER because the channel is going off the air after what, 45 years? Well, they had a good run, hell I still remember when all they played was music videos, and then a few years later, everything was a music video. But when the novelty wore off MTV turned to reality shows like "Teen Mom" and "Catfish" and now they only show music videos for 1 hour every week, the channel's programming has been absorbed into the giant sponge that is Paramount Plus ("One of US! "One of US!).

Well, in addition to the films "Election" and "Hustle & Flow", MTV Films also made THIS movie, about a white teen who dances ballet moving to Chicago and falling in love with a black classmate. This all comes about because Sara's mother died in a car crash and she was forced to move in with her father, who she barely knows, and he's a nightclub jazz musician in Chi-Town. Look, I'll be honest, this movie really isn't my thing, but it's bound to get some nominations for the Honky Awards at the end of this year, like "Best Romance (High School)" or "Best Romance (Inter-racial)" - yes, that's a category, and any other thing I notice that movies have in common on some level can be a category that I make up. 

But a lot of this I just can't relate to, not the ballet stuff, not the hip-hop stuff, and I also never dated in high school, I waited for college to get started there. (So, yeah, it's my ex-wife's birthday, I'm not in touch with her but that doesn't mean I can't spare a thought for her today - also the Nets were playing the Cleveland Cavaliers, and my ex-in-laws lived near Cleveland.) There are so many other topics that this film touches on, like teen mothers, single mothers, dead mothers, then also gang-bangers, dance clubs, and dance tryouts. Interracial dating, infidelity, teen sex. To say this film is all over the place would be an understatement - I kind of wish there had been a little more focus, like maybe stop and think about what first and foremost a film should be ABOUT, and then realize that every thematic deviation from that is just kind of taking the film in a different direction, and you'll never get anywhere that way, at least I don't think so. 

Sara starts having fights in gym class with Nikki, Derek's ex, and then Sara and Derek start getting it on, meanwhile Sara's father remains the most hands-off parent possible - maybe he just doesn't get bothered by much, I don't know. Derek and Sara also start dancing together, in a style that is a bit hip-hop and a bit ballet, and he convinces her to get back to her dream of studying dance at Juilliard, which she gave up after her mother died. Coincidentally, the people who audition ballet dancers for that school are coming to Chicago in about a month, so they agree to work out a routine for the "modern dance" portion of her interview. Perhaps this is the part she tanked the first time?

But Derek's friend Malakai, who is still involved in the gang lifestyle, pressures Derek to help him with a drive-by shooting, which takes place exactly when Sara's audition does, because of course, we need some kind of conflict, and Derek needs to make some kind of choice between his past and his future with Sara - don't forget he just got accepted to Georgetown, too, that university probably would not want to find out that the inner-city teen they just accepted is still causing mayhem in the streets. So Derek backs out of the gang shooting so he can be there for Sara, but really, he should have done that anyway, for his own college future's sake.  OK, so we know Derek is going to Georgetown and quite probably Sara will be going to Juilliard, so with one in Washington DC and the other in NYC, what is the future for their relationship?  Maddeningly, the film can't or won't tell us, so this all feels kind of unfinished, like the director just gave up halfway through and left it for the audience to figure out. I guess they made a sequel, but with a different cast and it seems that nobody watched it. 

Directed by Thomas Carter (director of "Coach Carter")

Also starring Julia Stiles (last seen in "It's a Disaster"), Sean Patrick Thomas (last seen in "Till"), Kerry Washington (last seen in "The Six Triple Eight"), Fredro Starr (last seen in "Clockers"), Bianca Lawson (last seen in "Primary Colors"), Vince Green (last seen in "Hardball"), Garland Whitt (last seen in "Dolemite Is My Name"), Elisabeth Oas, Artel Great (last seen in "The Soloist"), Cory Stewart, Jennifer Anglin (last seen in "The Watcher"), Andrew Rothenberg (ditto), Dorothy Martin, Kim Tlusty, Felicia Fields (last seen in "Slice"), Ora Jones (last seen in "The Weather Man"), Tab Baker (last seen in "The Ice Harvest"), Kevin Reid, Mekdes Bruk, Ronnie Ray, Tai Davis (last seen in "Widows"), Karima Westbrook (last seen in "The Rum Diary"), Erica Hubbard, Whitney Powell, Brenda Pickleman (last seen in "U.S. Marshals"), Julie Greenberg, Anna Paskevska, Malaika Paul, Jennifer Echols (last seen in "Fathers' Day"), Ellie Weingardt, Safia Jalila

RATING: 4 out of 10 cafeteria lunch trays

The House of Mirth

Year 18, Day 59 - 2/28/26 - Movie #5,259

BEFORE: It's the last day of February, so let's check the format stats for the month:

14 Movies watched on cable (saved to DVD): Cousins, The Extra Man, The Girl Next Door, The Fabelmans, Certain Women, The Tale, New in Town, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy,  Babygirl, The Photograph, We Are Your Friends, Love Again, Much Ado About Nothing, The House of Mirth

3 watched on Netflix: Woman of the Hour, Lonely Planet, A Family Affair

4 watched on Amazon Prime: Puppy Love, You're Cordially Invited, The Love Punch, Imagine Me & You
2 watched on Hulu: Cat Person, Good Luck to You Leo Grande

1 watched on Pluto TV: The Wings of the Dove

3 watched on Tubi: Roger Dodger, The Last Five Years, Spin Me Round

1 watched on a random site: Vita & Virginia
28 TOTAL

Elizabeth McGovern carries over from "The Wings of the Dove", and I'll post the links until St. Patrick's Day tomorrow. But first it's time to check the line-up for Day 17 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, this is for Sunday, March 1, and the theme is "Oscar Goes Dancing". Hmm, that's going to fit right in with my film for tomorrow, I think: 

6:15 am "Hollywood Canteen" (1944)

8:30 am "42nd Street" (1933)

10:15 am "Born to Dance" (1936)

12:15 pm "Swing Time" (1936)

2:51 pm "Royal Wedding" (1951)

4:00 pm "The Band Wagon" (1953)

6:00 pm "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" (1954)

8:00 pm "West Side Story" (1961)

10:45 pm "All That Jazz" (1979)

1:00 am "The Red Shoes" (1948)

3:30 am "Fame" (1980)

I've seen seven of these 11, so that's good - "Swing Time" and everything after that, except for "The Red Shoes". Am I mistaken, or is there some actor linking going on here? Fred Astaire carries over from "Swing Time" to "Royal Wedding" and then "The Band Wagon", and Jane Powell carries over from "Royal Wedding" to "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", and then Russ Tamblyn carries over from THAT film to "West Side Story". I think TCM made this same grouping of films a few years ago when they were doing a linking thing, and maybe just liked this order and wanted to repeat it? Anyway, I'm rising to 78 seen out of 189, which is 41.2% - my score went UP!

THE PLOT: A woman risks losing her chance of happiness with the only man she has ever loved. 

AFTER: This story treads some of the same ground as "The Wings of the Dove", the two films are set around 1910 and are based on classic novels about class struggle, one written by Henry James and the other written by Edith Wharton. Wharton could be the female American version of Henry James, for all I know. Hell, they could the same person, for all I know. They both apparently excelled at writing about whatever the opposite of joy was, and of course one was European and the other American, so we've got every possible other thing carrying over as well - both films have a female lead character who has no way to improve her station unless she can get married to a richer guy, and she's having no luck with that. And in both stories the lead character is in a situation-ship with a man who has a job that doesn't make "enough" money - a reporter in the James book and a lawyer in this one. 

Wait, there's more - in both cases the lead female is beholden to her aunt, who controls her financial reputation and gives her a small allowance. The difference comes when in "The Wings of The Dove" Kate takes action to try and get the money from a rich heiress's fortune and fails, and here Lily tries to get money in various other ways - by investing, by working in a millinery, and by inheriting money from her aunt, but nothing really works, except she DOES get $10,000 when her aunt dies, however it takes a long time to collect it, and Lily has outstanding gambling debts that need to be paid, so that inheritance is spent already, essentially.  Supposedly she's going to get $9,000 of investment money from Gus Trenor, her friend Judy's husband, however after a night at the opera Gus reveals that this money is really his, he invested it on Lily's behalf, but he wants a little sumpin' sumpin' in return for that money, and Lily doesn't want to give it to him. OK, fine, but then he wants his $9,000 back. 

That lawyer that Lily romances occasionally is Lawrence Selden, but he's got a couple other relationships going on, including an affair with Bertha Dorset, another one of Lily's friends. A random woman comes to Lily's door one day with love letters sent from Bertha to Selden, and Lily pays the woman $100. WHAT? I thought Lily was deep in debt, but she's got $100 to pay off a blackmailing stranger who found some love letters?  She must really did this Selden guy, but how's he going to support a wife on a lawyer's salary?  Again, WHAT? Were lawyers paid horribly back in 1910?  These days lawyers tend to make a lot of money, but maybe things were different back then? 

Still, Lily can't seem to catch a break - Simon Rosedale does propose to her, and he owns a bunch of fancy buildings, but Lily would seem to prefer to wait for her poor lawyer boyfriend to start making some bank. Bad move, Lily, you should have taken up Rosedale on his offer, you know what they say, "Buy land, they're not making any of it any more."  Lily rejects Rosedale's proposal because reasons, and instead goes on a European cruise with the Dorsets. Sure, if you're short on cash, maybe a cruise will fix everything. Wait WHAT? HOW? She's just digging the hole deeper, isn't she? But she's desperate to get away from the bill collectors in New York. Very relatable. 

On this yacht near Monte Carlo, Lily hangs out with George Dorset while Bertha seems to enjoy the company of a young poet. George freaks out one night when Lily doesn't make it back to the ship, and he accuses Lily of knowing about his wife's affair with this poet. Lily claims to know nothing, and when Bertha is confronted about it, she claims that Lily is having an affair with George. Sure, deny everything, admit nothing, then attack attack attack. Selden, meanwhile, arrives in Monte Carlo himself and starts hanging out with Carry Fisher, yet another friend of Lily's who seems to keep putting herself in-between Lily and any available bachelor. Man, it's rough out there, I suppose. 

Fast forward a bit to New York, after the cruise, when Lily's aunt has died and the Dorsets are breaking up. Most of Lily's aunt's fortune goes to her cousin, Grace Stepney, and Lily is essentially homeless, but Carry Fisher invites her to stay with her at the Gormers' place. Again, Lily has two possible prospects for marriage, the divorced George Dorset, or Simon Rosedale, who proposed to her before and she turned him down.  Well, she blows it with both of them, because George asks Lily for the truth about his wife's affairs, and she says she knows nothing (even though she BOUGHT those love letters from the blackmailer!) and then she offers to marry Rosedale, only now HE'S not into HER. Simon thinks Lily should use those letters to get Bertha to restore her social standing, but for some reason she won't. 

Finally, Lily gets a J-O-B as a secretary and companion for socialite Mrs. Hatch, she needs the money, but working for a living isn't helping her social standing. What a commoner, working for a living. One of her responsibilities is to pick up Mrs. Hatch's sleeping medication, but Lily begins taking it herself to deal with all the troubles in her life. Mrs. Hatch breaks into society, but feels that keeping Lily employed would be a liability, so she fires her. Lily works that sewing job in a hat factory, but by now she's addicted to laudanum and doing a bad job. She tries to borrow money from Grace, her cousin who got most of her aunt's money, but is turned down. 

It really doesn't make much sense here, but Lily burns the letters that Selden wrote to Bertha, letters which she could have somehow used to get either money or social status. Then she finally FINALLY gets her $10,000 of inheritance money, but she turns it right around and pays off Gus Trenor, so there goes most of the money, and remember she still has those gambling debts, too. But this is as close as she'll ever get to a blank slate, I suppose, so with the scales balanced, she overdoses and checks out. Selden figures out what she did for him and declares his love for her, just a bit too late. 

I don't really understand why the title is "The House of Mirth", because there's really no mirth anywhere in this film. It's extremely depressing to have to watch this woman struggle to support herself and fail over and over again. It's relatable, but maybe a bit TOO relatable, especially if I have to dip into my savings account a little each month, just to finish paying my own bills. Maybe in Lily I see the need to improve my situation, coupled with the apparent inability to do so. Anyway, I base my score on how much I enjoyed a movie, and really there's no enjoyment here at all, either. Sorry. 

Directed by Terence Davies

Also starring Gillian Anderson (last seen in "Boogie Woogie"), Eric Stoltz (last seen in "Brats"), Dan Aykroyd (last seen in "Dear Ms.: A Revolution in Print"), Anthony LaPaglia (last heard in "All-Star Superman"), Laura Linney (last seen in "Genius"), Terry Kinney (last seen in "Mile 22"), Eleanor Bron (last seen in "Iris"), Jodhi May (last seen in "Einstein and Eddington"), Penny Downie (last seen in "Breathe"), Pearce Quigley (last seen in "The Way Back"), Helen Coker (last seen in "Vanity Fair"), Mary MacLeod, Paul Venables (last seen in "Skyfall"), Serena Gordon (last seen in "GoldenEye"), Lorelei King (last seen in "Shining Through"), Linda Marlowe (last seen in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"), Anne Marie Timoney, Clare Higgins (last seen in "Bigger Than the Sky"), Ralph Riach (last seen in "Copying Beethoven"), Brian Pettifer (last seen in "Conspiracy"), Philippe De Grossouvre, Trevor Martin (last seen in "Othello"), David Ashton (last seen in "The Last King of Scotland"), Lesley Harcourt, Mark Dymond (last seen in "Die Another Day"), Pamela Dwyer, Kate Wooldridge, Graham Crammond, Roy Sampson (last seen in "Macbeth"), Alyxis Daly. 

RATING: 3 out of 10 tableaux vivants

The Wings of the Dove

Year 18, Day 58 - 2/27/26 - Movie #5,258

BEFORE: It was a bit of a long road getting here, and I'm not even talking about this year's chain. This is one of the films that was on my old DVR, the one that crashed that I had to turn back in to the cable company, even though it was 75% full of movies. I lost over 45 movies that way, and some were easy to replace because they were still running on premium channels, but others were a bit rare and don't run very often, I think now there are maybe just 17 or 18 of those that I'm hoping get re-aired at some point. So I've been keeping an eye out for this one in the on-screen guide, but it hasn't popped up in the last year. I programmed it anyway, because it turned out this February to be one of those films that can serve as a valuable link to keep the chain going and make the connections between other films. So Ben Miles carries over from "Imagine Me & You" and this gets me one step closer to the end of the month. 

I got lucky with "Much Ado About Nothing", PBS aired it on a Saturday night about five days before I had it programmed - but I couldn't expect to get lucky like that twice this month. So I relegated myself to watching this on YouTube or iTunes and paying $1.99 or $2.99 for that, but I did get "lucky" of a sort in that this was available on Pluto TV, so I could watch it without paying for it, I just had to endure a few commercials and the occasional unexplained sudden jump to the middle of the movie "Mo' Money" or an episode of "NCIS". (Jeez, this movie is really hard to follow, this Victorian romance has suddenly turned into a crime show...). Anyway, I soldiered through and now I can move this film from the list of films I lost that need to be replaced to the list of films I've seen, but don't have a digital copy of. So I'm still on the hunt for it, but there's no pressure or urgency to find it. 

Let's get to the Day 16 line-up for TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming, this is for Saturday, February 28 and the theme is "Oscar Goes West". Well, I've seen a lot of Westerns, so here's hoping: 

5:15 am "Cimarron" (1931)

7:30 am "How the West Was Won" (1962)

10:30 am "Calamity Jane" (1953)

12:15 pm "Stagecoach" (1939)

2:00 pm "Red River" (1948)

4:30 pm "The Naked Spur" (1953)

6:15 pm "Broken Arrow" (1950)

8:00 pm "Shane" (1953)

10:15 pm "Hondo" (1953)

11:45 pm "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" (1971)

2:00 am "The Wild Bunch" (1969)

4:30 am "Billy the Kid" (1941)

I think I've only seen four of these - "Stagecoach", "Shane", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" and "The Wild Bunch", I guess that makes me a poser, I haven't seen most of the older ones. But I think I need to record "How the West Was Won", I've been putting it off for years and it's overdue. Now I just have to remember to set the DVR. This brings me up to 71 seen out of 178, which is 39.8% and I'm back down below the 40% benchmark. 

THE PLOT: A woman who has been forced to choose between a privileged life with her wealthy aunt and her journalist lover befriends an American heiress. When she learns the heiress is attracted to her own lover and is dying, she sees a chance to have both the life she cannot give up and the lover she cannot live without. 

AFTER: The topic of relationships and romances is a hefty one - February is coming to an end but my chain is scheduled to drag into March, past St. Patrick's Day even. That's fine, the list of romance-themed films is so long that the more movies I can take off the list, the better. At the same time, I need to leave enough films ON the list, and the RIGHT films, so I can still put a chain together next year, God willing. Hey, if I can't, I can just do a short one and devote half of February to Black History films, there's always that option. But usually enough films that fit the theme come on the list between April and December, giving me enough to work with. But this year I also took care to choose some films that have been taking up space for a LONG time, like "Cousins", "Roger Dodger", and today's film. Films from the 1990's, they've got to GO, I can't put them off another year, this is like clearance sale time.  

With "The Wings of the Dove", there was this bit of a feeling, and it's not uncommon for me, to think, "Well, this film came out in 1997, surely I must have seen it then, or shortly thereafter, right? Well, I had no proof of that, because I only started rating films on IMDB in 2009, and so anything that's rated there when I sign in, I can confirm I've seen. Before that some things get a little hazy, because I'm 57 now, I can't be expected to remember every film I saw when I was in my 20's or 30's - my memory can't really be trusted, but you know, I might have seen "Much Ado About Nothing" before, but if I did, the plot sure didn't stick in my memory, and when I started watching it this week, I did NOT get that feeling of "Oh, wait, I've seen this one..." and I have to trust my gut sometimes. I also bought a lot of DVDs in the 1990's and a bunch of VHS tapes before that, so if I don't OWN a copy, that's another good sign that I haven't seen that film. Then once I started burning my own DVDs in 2004, I kept a database of everything I dubbed and burned, so if a film's not on that spreadsheet, chances are I haven't seen it.  

I double-checked and triple-checked, so I'm 99% sure I have not seen "The Wings of the Dove" before. I didn't know one thing about the plot, I didn't get that deja vu feeling when I started watching it, and it's not in the database, it's not rated on IMDB, and I don't have a copy on the shelf. Great, because it's exactly the film I need to connect to the next film and close out the month. What a relief, I don't have to scramble at the last minute and find something to replace it. Also, it kind of fits in with the other films this week, going back to "Love Again" there's been a bit of a common thread about deception, like Rob not telling Mira he's been getting the texts she was sending to her dead boyfriend, or the couple in "Love Punch" pretending to be Texan-Americans in order to steal a diamond. Don John causing Claudio to think that Hero was being unfaithful, or Rachel not telling her husband that she had feelings for Luce. That all works for me, having a theme for the week is always great. I mean, it can't be "Classics Week" if we only have one Shakespeare play and one Henry James novel, even if tomorrow is based on another classic book, that doesn't fill up the week. 

Anyway, the deception here in today's film involves Kate Croy setting up a rich American heiress with her own boyfriend, with the idea that if they should marry, he will inherit her money when she dies, and apparently she's got some kind of fatal illness that they couldn't cure back then. The film is set in 1910, when apparently everyone in London was hurting for money and desperate to not lose their castles or estates. To be fair, the wartime economy wouldn't hit for another couple of years, and larger families were still the norm, so if you weren't the first-born son you probably didn't inherit much, and you had to live in the smaller castle or (god forbid) the guest house on the manor. And that's it you were a man, for women it was even tougher, because it's not like a woman could hold a JOB or anything, heaven forbid, they were much too fragile then. JK, down with the patriarchy. 

Kate lives with her aunt Maud, who controls the family fortune, so Kate can't marry her lover Merton, a lowly journalist, because he doesn't meet Maud's standards. Maud would rather set Kate up with Lord Mark. Kate keeps seeing Merton secretly, however, and Merton begs her to leave her aunt and move in with him, but then she'd be cut off and they'd both be poor. Kate also learns that Maud is supporting her father by sending him a few shillings each week, and if she were to run off with Merton, Maud would also stop doing that, so for the sake of her father and to not be poor herself, Kate breaks up with Merton. 

A few months later, American heiress Milly comes through town, and forms a friendship with Kate, she even suggests that Kate come with her to her next stop, Venice. Lord Mark turns his attention to Milly because he's also running out of money, and if he were to marry Milly, that would vastly improve his situation. Lord Mark also reveals to Kate that Milly is very sick, and at this point Kate's gotten back together with Merton, so she hatches a plan to go to Venice with Milly, and since Milly seems to enjoy Merton's company, bring him along so that Milly will fall in love with him and leave her money to him when she passes. 

However, Kate didn't plan on becoming jealous when watching Milly and Merton together. Kate lures Merton away one night to have sex with him, but Milly somehow suspects something, so Kate decides she needs to leave them together in Venice but return to London herself. The plan is going well until Lord Mark shows up and reveals the scheme to Milly - Kate must have told Lord Mark, but why? Milly still prefers Merton to Lord Mark, even after she knows about the plan, so it seems that without Kate around, the love between Merton and Milly became much more real, and you know, that can happen. But still Milly dies and leaves her money to Merton, so the plan worked, at least at first glance. 

It all gets wrecked after the funeral, when Kate comes back to Merton's apartment and confirms that Milly did leave him a large amount of money. But Merton says he won't take the money, and if Kate wants to be with him, she must marry him without the money. Kate agrees to this, but only if Merton can tell her that he's not still in love with the memory of Milly. Which of course he is, the fake love became real love and so Kate learns that her scheme has completely backfired. Now she can't have the money and she can't have Merton, not the way she wants him, anyway. I think we can assume Kate thought that once Milly died and Merton had some money, either he'd be a more respectable husband that Maud would approve of, or at least he could support Kate if Maud didn't approve. 

This is sort of reminiscent of that O. Henry story where the man buys his wife beautiful combs and she busy him a beautiful chain for his watch - only he sold his watch to buy her the combs and she sold her hair to buy him the chain. Nobody gets what they want - but at least here this happens to people who deserve it, it's bad karma coming back at them for trying to swindle Milly out of her money. 

Well, I guess it's not a total loss, I mean Merton still has his newspaper job, he'll probably be very busy once World War I breaks out - and Kate has still got a chance at getting money from her Aunt Maud, if she's willing to marry the right man and make his life miserable and very long. And maybe they both learned a lesson about not swindling Americans out of their money, it only leads to everybody being unhappy. 

Directed by Iain Softley (director of "Hackers" and "Inkheart")

Also starring Helena Bonham Carter (last seen in "Enola Holmes 2"), Alison Elliott (last seen in "The Phenom"), Linus Roache (last seen in "The Namesake"), Elizabeth McGovern (last seen in "A Shock to the System"), Charlotte Rampling (last seen in "Cleanskin"), Michael Gambon (last seen in "King of Thieves"), Alex Jennings (last seen in "The Phoenician Scheme"), Philip Wright, Alexander John (last seen in "Sense and Sensibility"), Shirley Chantrell (last seen in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life"), Diana Kent (last seen in "Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker"), Georgio Serafini, Rachele Crisafulli,

RATING: 6 out of 10 pornographic etchings in the back of the bookstore

Imagine Me & You

Year 18, Day 57 - 2/26/26 - Movie #5,257

BEFORE: Another storm, another cable/internet outage, another two Nets games and another two difficult treks home late at night. I've got the day off tomorrow so I plan to sleep until noon, I've got a big weekend coming up with the New York International Children's Film Festival starting up on Saturday. Maybe tomorrow, Friday, I'll watch a double-feature to finish off the month because I'll be working all day Saturday.  

Gerard Horan carries over from "Much Ado About Nothing". And here's the line-up for Day 15 of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar", tomorrow we'll be past the halfway point. The themes for Friday, February 27 are "Oscar Goes to Sea" and "Oscar Goes to Court": 

6:30 am "Captains Courageous" (1937)

8:30 am "One Way Passage" (1932)

9:45 am "Romance on the High Seas" (1948)

11:30 am "Now, Voyager" (1942)

1:30 pm "The Last Voyage" (1960)

3:15 pm "Billy Budd" (1962)

5:30 pm "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1935)

8:00 pm "12 Angry Men" (1957)

9:45 pm "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957)

12:00 am "Judgment at Nuremberg" (1961)

3:15 am "Adam's Rib" (1949)

I think I'm hitting for 5 today, "Now, Voyager", "Mutiny on the Bounty", "12 Angry Men ", "Witness for the Prosecution" and "Adam's Rib".  So 5 seen out of 11 is almost half, and brings me up to 67 seen out of 166, or 40.3% - yeah I didn't expect a big increase. 

THE PLOT: A newlywed bride becomes infatuated with another woman who questions her sexual orientation, promoting a stir among the bride's family and friends. 

AFTER: This movie is bound to be triggering for me to some degree - I almost don't have to watch this because I kind of LIVED it, my first wife came out of the closet after we'd been married for four years, and at first it seemed like maybe we could make something work, like she swore up and down that realizing this about herself wasn't going to change anything, but that's pretty ridiculous because that itself represented a very big change, so you know, too late. We tried to hold it together for another year (OK, I tried) but then it just wasn't going to work, was it? To continue to be with me would mean denying that new part of herself that she was just getting in touch with, and you know, the cat's out of the bag or the bird's out of the cage or the toothpaste is out of the tube, and really there's no going back. 

I know, I know, we're supposed to celebrate when people come out, or finally realize their sexual identity or whatever you want to call it, and generally I agree with that, I support people coming out and being their true selves or finding unconventional love and all that, but it's a bit different when you're the straight husband being left behind, or essentially being told by the person who wanted you as a lover now has a new plan and you're not part of it. If you think it's tough to be the person in the middle of the love triangle, try being just one of the corners and the losing one at that. The married woman who suddenly realizes she's gay, or bi-sexual, or bi-curious is in a difficult spot, of course, she has to think about what other people are going to say if she leaves her husband in order to have a girlfriend or a wife. If she's lucky she'll have support from family and friends, advice from a therapist or what have you, just don't expect support from the husband, that's all. 

Heck, the husband here, knows he's lost the battle and steps aside, because he doesn't want to stand in the way of Rachel following her heart, realizing her true nature or at least exploring this new opportunity - and really, that's the only way this story could proceed, if Rachel acted on her attraction to Luce and then suddenly had to STOP feeling that way about her, then she'd be denying herself with every day she continues to stay with Heck, and the balance of power has already shifted, it's too late for Heck to fix things, because Rachel's going to regret staying with Heck, for sure, and if she doesn't pursue Luce, she will always question whether she should have. 

Sure, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Sure, the path not taken always seems a bit more attractive than the safe, boring one you took, get it? There's also the possibility that getting married WAS the trigger, as soon as Rachel took those vows and said "forsake all others" and "until death do we part", that's a bit too final for some people. Rachel maybe felt the walls closing in on the day of the ceremony, and Luce the florist was RIGHT THERE, looking like she looks, right around the time she was forced to wear a white dress and state publicly that she was never going to have sex with anyone else. An impossible situation has been created, as this film describes the conundrum about an unstoppable force meeting with an unmovable object.  Well, that's a contradictory thing, because something has to give, either the object is going to move or the force is going to be stopped. 

Still, this movie was released in 2005, it's twenty years old and I think it's already antiquated in the simplicity of the situation. The solutions here are binary, Rachel either stays with Heck or runs off with Luce. Why are those the only two options? These days we have people who are bi-sexual, trans-sexual, a-sexual, and poly-sexual. There are thrupples and presumably quadrupples too, there's no longer just one way to live, it used to be you're either married or you're single, gay or straight, and there was no in-between. These days you can make your own  in-between if you want, or just not play the game at all - figuring out what works for you can be part of the process. What if Rachel decided she wanted to live 6 months out of the year with Heck and then 6 months with Luce, would that be so outrageous? It probably wouldn't be fair to either Heck or Luce, but still, saying that she has to choose between one or the other seems like it maybe needs to go in the trash-bin with "gays can't get married". 

I was for gay marriage when it was a hot-button issue, I know some people might be surprised by that, but only on the condition that there also be gay divorce. Just like it wasn't fair when straight people could get married and gay people couldn't, it wouldn't be fair if gay people didn't have to suffer the same consequences as straights when things didn't work out. Hell, that was probably a whole new cottage industry for divorce lawyers, gay separations and gay custody battles and gay alimony, presumably. Fair is fair. 

Anyway, I knew how this one was going to end pretty soon after it started. Luce was acting as "the fun one" and Heck was always working. Once Rachel and Luce went out to the footy match and played "Dance Dance Revolution" together, there was no going back. But Luce said she didn't believe in breaking up a marriage to get a woman, but I guess that went right out the window because she sure seemed like she was eager to take that opportunity if she could. I know, I know, it's complicated and we all have to weigh our own happiness against the rules as we see them. But we also all have to live with ourselves and the consequences of our own actions, just saying. If someone's sexual orientation truly doesn't matter, just ask yourself if you're rooting for Rachel to leave her husband for a woman harder than you would if she were leaving her husband for another man. 

Directed by Ol Parker (director of "Ticket to Paradise" and "Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again")

Also starring Piper Perabo (last seen in "Because I Said So"), Lena Headey (last heard in "DC League of Super-Pets"), Matthew Goode (last seen in "Stoker"), Celia Imrie (last seen in "The Love Punch"), Anthony Head (last seen in "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters"), Darren Boyd (last seen in "Alan Partridge"), Sue Johnston, Boo Jackson, Sharon Horgan (last seen in "Man Up"), Eva Birthistle (last seen in "Brooklyn"), Vinette Robinson (last seen in Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker"), Ben Miles (last seen in "Speed Racer"), John Thompson, Mona Hammond (last seen in "Kinky Boots"), Kellie Bright (ditto), Rick Warden (last seen in "Death on the Nile"), Ruth Sheen (last seen in "The Thursday Murder Club"), Philip Bird (last seen in "Napoleon"), Justine Mitchell (last seen in "The Mauritanian"), Angel Coulby, Ben Willbond (last seen in "King of Thieves"), Krishan Naidoo, Sharon Duncan-Brewster (last seen in "Enola Holmes 2"), James Thorne, Tom McKay, Andrew Dunford (last seen in "The Borrowers" (1997)), Carl M. Smith, Carolyn Morrison,

RATING: 5 out of 10 adult films in the video rental section