Palmerin

The so-called proxy wars were the campaigns of WWIII; just ask my cousin, Lt. Colonel Peter Roldan, who was very involved in the strategy of the ,,civil'' wars of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua; it was him who explained to me how the USA and the USSR fought each other through indirect means. WWIII might not have started in Europe, but it definitely ended in Europe, when the communist governments fell and Yugoslavia exploded.

It was a hot shooting war several times: in Korea, Indo China, Afghanistan, for example; don't make the mistake of dismissing it as a WW simply because it was not fought in Europe; Europe is not the center of the world. As for genocide, you know what happened in China under Mao and Cambodia under Pol Pot--and what is happening now under ISIS. WWII was fought differently from WWI, so it's only logical that future wars be fought with different strategies and tactics.

What is a perogrullada? It's a fact that is so self-evident that pointing it out is just silly. I am now going to point out one to which the USA has been oblivious for no less than 70 years: WORLD WAR II IS OVER; THE NAZIS ARE NO LONGER A DANGER TO ANYONE. The world in general and the USA in particular must pay attention now to the FOURTH World War: the war against Islamic terrorists, who are at least as dangerous as the communists in the THIRD World War, which for no valid reason has been nicknamed with the euphemism Cold (???!!!) War.

Speaking of WWI ... Serbs in Bosnia who are obviously stuck in 1914 have just erected a monument to Gavrilo Princip. Get ready for a monument to JW Booth sponsored by the K--K--K--: a monument to C Guiteau sponsored by disappointed political office seekers; a monument to L Czolgosz sponsored by the anarchists; a monument to LH Oswald sponsored by the communists; and a monument to JW Hinckley sponsored by rabid fans of Jodie Foster.

Those were TOP ANNOYING!--perfect examples of totally missing the point of the movies that are supposed to be the topics of the comments of the host.

A touch of gallows humor. A writer in Spain during WWII wrote the following: usually during a war one sympathizes with one side, sometimes both; I certainly was sorry that the Allies and the Central Powers fought the Great War. With the fight between the Germans and the Soviets, however, sympathy is not warranted. The bullet that kills the German is not wasted, and the bullet that kills the Soviet is not wasted either.

Something that makes me very happy about the otherwise rueful dismal war of 1914-1918: my Spain took no part in it. Contrary to what that wise fool, Woodrow Wilson, thought, the Great War was not fought to make the world safe for democracy; instead it was a rebatin~a=free-for-all to steal territory from neighboring countries--imperialism, to use communist terminology. Portugal entered the war to grab some of the African colonies of Germany, and what did Portugal get in reward for its cupidity? NADA=NOTHING! Spain had a queen mother who was Austrian, and a queen consort who was British, which meant that entering the war without tearing apart the royal family was impossible; public opinion was evenly divided; Spain had its own war in Morocco; most of all, Spain had nothing to gain by joining either side. Which leads to another reason for joy: that Spain also remained neutral in the Second Great War. There was enthusiasm for entering the war in order to reclaim lost Spanish territory, and the Blue Division that fought in the Russian front distinguished itself so well that, in the enthronement of King Juan Carlos I, there were many generals who bore the Iron Cross. However, there was also the caution of Franco. Unlike Hitler and Mussolini, who were pure amateurs, F was a professional military man who had won two wars, and who was only too aware of the risks that H and M were taking. Taking on the USSR before he had finished with Great Britain, taking on the USA, not coordinating his war effort with that of Japan: F was appalled at the recklessness of H! Most of all, F was aware of the exposed geographical position of Spain. If Spain had been a member of the Axis, the first Allied invasion of Europe would not have happened in Italy, but rather in Spain, which was easier to reach. Which leads to my biggest concern: bombardments. Except for Guernica, bombardments in the 1936-39 War were comparatively light; both sides in the conflict were very concerned about the integrity of the cities of Spain, and tried to limit damage. Can you imagine Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao, Seville, Cordoba and other Patrimonies of Humanity being subjected to the kind of bombardment that reduced Warsaw and Dresden to rubble???

It's too restrictive to limit the term controversial to political and social issues, as there are many movies that are controversial for other reasons. For ex., the Harry Potter books and movies were once criticized for promoting belief in witchcraft.

By definition ALL movies are controversial. Can you mention even one movie that received unanimous approval at its premiere? For ex., right from its opening day THE SOUND OF MUSIC was criticized as being saccharine and sloppily sentimental, sentiments still shared by many people.

You know that I have previously complained that Osborne and Mankiewicz often fail to say anything genuinely relevant about the movies that they introduce. I suppose I should explain what I would like the comments to say. Let's take THE ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN of Vincent Sherman as an example. You can count on Osborne and Mankiewicz speaking about frivolous stuff such as the fact that Errol Flynn was not in the best of shape, and therefore needed the help of stuntmen. If I were the guest host I would speak of the genuinely important feature of that film: DON JUAN himself. Most people visualize that character through the opera of Mozart and da Ponte, not realizing that there are many versions of this story, in some of which Don Juan is portrayed more positively. Of particular importance is the play DON JUAN TENORIO, by Jose Zorrilla y Moral, in which DJ really falls in love with the daughter of the Comendador, with the result that, in the climax, she successfully stops her father from dragging DJ to Hell. Herbert Dalmas and the other writers of Sherman's movie--which included William Faulkner--undoubtedly were influenced by Zorrilla's play, and were led to portray DJ as a noble patriot who is willing to risk his life for the sake of Queen Margaret of Austria, who was indeed a loyal wife who tried to compensate for the weak character of her husband. Altogether, this film makes for a worthy addition to the many artistic depictions of this character, one of the most iconic in literature. Those would be my introductory remarks. For the conclusion I would point out my main objection to the movie: the Duke of Lorca practically overthrowing the monarchy. That basic plot would be appropriate for the Middle Ages and for the 19th century, both of them periods in which coups d'état were frequent, but not for the 17th century. The 17th century was a period of unequalled respect for royalty, to the point that the overthrowing of Charles I and James II of England were events that absolutely shocked all of Europe. Spain itself has a perfect example: John Joseph of Austria, acknowledged bastard son of Philip IV, had a long political and military career, which allowed him to build up a considerable following; the Queen Mother was not popular; and her son and JJ's half brother, King Charles II, was physically and mentally weak. If this had been the Middle Ages or the 19th century JJ would likely have tried to claim the kingship; instead he simply removed the Queen Mother from power and installed himself as the power behind the throne, allowing his brother to retain his authority as monarch. The Duke of Lorca would have been equally circumspect: he might have engaged in a bit of embezzlement--a crime common among politicians of this period--, but he would never ever think of harming or undermining the royal persons.

You remember how Reagan, in his debate with Carter, concluded by asking the public whether they were better off today than they were four years before. In the case of WWI, it's very appropriate to ask whether Europe and the world are better off today than they were in 1914.

As I watched NORTH BY NORTHWEST today I realized how crushingly monochromatic that film is. There is such a preponderance of grey--virtually the only color of the menswear--that it really seems that the only color is the red of the faces of the actors. Why do so many movies fail to take advantage of the rich possibilities of color photography? NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is not in color; its photography is all endless shades of brown, ochre, sepia, sienna, etc.!

I remember that, back when THE RED SKELTON SHOW was on, he was often criticized for bad taste. I have never understood that criticism; what did Skelton do that was in bad taste? I thought he was funny, but I was only a child. Regarding the subject of this thread, the vital question is: WHAT IS FUNNY? Some people, such as my mother, who still laughs at the inane jokes she learned as a child, have terrible senses of humor. So did Lorenzo Semple-Minded; even as a child I hated his lack of respect for BATMAN, which was definitely in bad taste. So what IS funny? Surprisingly enough, often times effective humor is purely accidental. All too often the comedies of such people as Adam Sandler try too hard to be funny; on the other hand, P9FOS is hilarious because Ed Wood made it in all seriousness; no bad taste camp or tongue in cheek intended!

How do you like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE? If its dialog was tweaked judiciously that movie would make for a very witty spoof of the science fiction of the 1950s.

... are a thing I don't believe exists. They are supposed to be funny because they are so ridiculous. However, bombs like AT LONG LAST LOVE, BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, the Burt Bacharach LOST HORIZON, and ZABRISKIE POINT do not inspire any mirth in me; instead I'm ashamed of myself for wasting my precious time on Earth on such a worthless activity.

OKLAHOMA is as saccharine as Kool-Aid; the only good thing about it is Rod Steiger's performance.

Enough with the Shelley Winters bashing! What about the MOVIES SO BAD THEY ARE GOOD? I have watched movies of that type, such as BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, the Peter Finch LOST HORIZON, and ZABRISKIE POINT, and they have NOT made me laugh; quite the contrary, watching them has been absolute torment.

Ever since I watched THE MUSIC MAN, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, and OLIVER! in the 1960s my fondest fantasy is to live in a musical world where every climactic moment is punctuated by an aria, a chorus, or a dance. My life has not been so tragic as to deserve Richard Wagner, but it has had enough drama to fit Richard Strauss just right. Speaking of movies ye don't like, what do you think of that perplexing phenomenon that is MOVIES SO BAD THEY ARE GOOD? PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE could, with a little tweaking of the dialogue, serve as a quite witty parody of the science fiction of the 1950s. Generally speaking, however, I find such bombs unbearable to watch. I once watched ZABRISKIE POINT to understand why it was rated as one of the 50 Worst Films Of All Time; the reasons were painfully obvious almost from the very start.

Por desgracia=unfortunately.

Look up THE SCARLET EMPRESS, where Catherine the Great, a woman of the 18th century, is made to look like Jean Harlow with penciled eyebrows and cupid bow lips

... was not very knowledgeable about the history of fashion. In both STRICTLY DISHONORABLE, a story set in the 1920s, and ABOVE AND BEYOND, set at the end of WWII, the fashions and hairdos are clearly of the early 1950s. Were the people of the sixth decade of the 20th century so tacky that they actually thought their ugly frumpy fashions were glamorous???!!! Marilyn and Jane Russell never looked worse than in the hideous dresses they wore in GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES! (exasperated groan)

That series of classic films that WIPR broadcast was very lengthy and very comprehensive, including several of the works of De Sica. I was particularly moved by MIRACLE IN MILAN, the enchanting story of an angelic young man whose good nature allows him to perform miracles. Who would have thought that a subject as downbeat as poor people living in a shantytown could inspire such a luminous funny fantasy?

Why this tribute to Michael Curtiz? His birthday is 24 December 1886, and his date of death is 10 April 1962.

Silent films fascinate me because their combination of pantomime and music make them resemble ballet. The KING OF KINGS of De Mille has particularly lovely sequences such as when Christ saves the adulteress by writing on the ground the sins--THIEF MURDERER ADULTERER--of those who want to cast stones against her. My childhood parish priest, Father Pedro Gallo, referred to that sequence in one of his sermons.

The makers of SANTA FE TRAIL certainly showed no scruples when they showed John Brown as a troublemaker who had no real concern for the slaves. History was my best subject in HS and college, always earning A+; I respect it too much to prostitute it as propaganda.