Well, dear readers, I must write these notes in a hurry because she of the Evil Eye will be here shortly. However, that’s good because I’ve got to do banking and shopping in preparation for the trip. I am hopeful that by the end of today both booklets will be to bed and, in fact, on there way to the printers. I spent most of yesterday dealing with booklets and website things. The latter is really coming along nicely, and the designer is doing a swell job of implementing all the notes I’ve been bombarding her with. In the morning, I had a lovely meeting, and then a lovely lunch. Then I spent the rest of the day going hither and thither and even yon. I finally wrapped everything up and then found time to write two pages. But, I’ll have time to write on the plane trips to and from Portland, so that’s good. Listen to me, just blabbing on and on when she of the Evil Eye will be here shortly. I must write short notes, short notes, and here I am blabbing on and on. Don’t I know the meaning of short notes? Short notes are brief, succinct, to the point, like a gazelle perusing the Reader’s Digest. Yes, that’s it – short notes are like the Reader’s Digest version of the notes. I knew it would come to me. It always comes to me and yet I never come to it. Why is that, do you suppose or, to put it another way, why do you suppose that is? Well, now that I’ve found the perfect way to put it – the Reader’s Digest or, in our case, the Dear Reader’s Digest – now, I can hie myself to the next paragraph with aplomb.
Did anyone notice the aplomb with which I hied myself to this paragraph? Last night I watched a motion picture on DVD entitled Prime Cut. May I just say that Prime Cut, which I’d never seen, is a very strange film. However, strange though it may be, it is also very entertaining, with great performances by Lee Marvin, Gene Hackman (playing a bad guy named Mary Ann), and Sissy Spacek in her first movie. It’s impossible to describe the tone of the film, but let me just say that it could never be made today, which holds true for Smile, which was also directed by Prime Cut’s Michael Ritchie. If you walked into a major studio or even a Miramax with the scripts of Smile and/or Prime Cut, you would be shown the door and never invited back. Yet, in the amazing, adventurous 70s these sorts of quirky films were the norm or, at the very least, the phil. The film is beautifully shot by Gene Polito, and even on first hearing the score by Lalo Schifrin is clearly one of his best. The transfer, courtesy of Paramount, is great – anamorphic scope and a beauty to behold. If you like weird, quirky movies, ones that have bad guys called Mary Ann and Weenie, and women named Clarabelle, then this might be right up your avenue.
Well, why don’t we all click on the Unseemly Button below because these are, after all, the Dear Reader’s Digest notes.
Well, if it’s Saturday, it must be time for an Unseemly Trivia Contest. You people have been too too good at these difficult questions, so here’s a stumper I hope will at least give you a hard time. It probably won’t because you people are just too too smart, trivia-wise. Here is the question:
In this rather extraordinary Broadway season, there were no less than seven hit plays, all of which were turned into movies. Even a couple of plays that had middling runs were turned into movies. The season also produced two huge hit musicals, several less-than-successful musicals, and one fairly notorious flop musical. Now, one of the biggest of the hit plays had a leading man and woman who had something very unique in common; in fact, it may be the only time such an in common thing has occurred. The play was directed by a well-known stage and film director. He, however, did not direct the film version of the play – another well-known film director did. In the cast were two actors who would go on to appear in two iconographic and hit television series in the 60s – one a sitcom, one more of a variety show. Now, for the final fillip, one more question, so pay attention: One of the other hit plays of the season also became a hit film. However, the lady who created the leading role on stage (a well-known film star) did not repeat her role in the film version. Ironically, another young actress, a relative newcomer, who was starring on Broadway in another play at the same time, would go on to star in the film version of this second hit play. She would also go on to be a beloved movie star. Are we clear? Do we have a headache? So –
Name the first hit play.
Name the leading lady and man who had something very unique in common, and tell us what the unique thing was.
Name the director of the play, and name the director of the film version of the play.
Name the two supporting actors who would be featured in two classic 60s TV shows.
And, finally, name the second hit play, name the actress who created the leading role on stage, and name the other actress who was also doing a play at the same time, who would go on to do the role in the film version of the second hit play.
Remember, DO NOT POST YOUR ANSWERS TO THE SITE. Send them to bruce@haineshisway.com, and if you get a bounced notice about the e-mail, do not fear – I am getting them. Good luck to one and all and also all and one. You have until midnight on Monday to submit your answers. You may submit as many answers as you like.
Well, that certainly wasn’t a Dear Reader’s Digest version of an Unseemly Trivia Contest question, was it?
Well, dear readers, I must take the day, I must do the things I do, I must write, I must relax, I must ready myself for the trip to Portland, I must pack, I must shop, and I must try to watch a DVD or three. Today’s topic of discussion: Pundits usually cite 1939 as the greatest year in movie history. I don’t happen to agree with that assessment. So, what is your favorite year in movie history – the year that had more movies that you love than any other. Let’s have loads of lovely postings shall we, and not of the Reader’s Digest variety, or even the Reader’s Digest Hollywood reporter.