Back in college at the beloved Northwestern, they would have a campus movie night where they'd show a different film every Friday night in the big Tech Auditorium that probably seated 1,000 people.  Sometimes it would be a fairly recent movie, sometimes a classic.  One night, they showed a Hitchcock classic, the 1956 thriller, The Man Who Knew Too Much, that starred  James Stewart and Doris Day.  It's a wonderful film that even won an Oscar.  (It's also a remake from an old black-and-while movie that HItchcock had made in England.)

James Stewart, of course, was very well-known and much loved.  Doris Day was popular herself, though that at point her persona wasn't as high with a college crowd, more known for her cheeriness and singing, in particular her huge hit, "Que Sera Sera," written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans, which she seems to sing everywhere.  It even was used as the theme song for when she had a TV sitcom.  Like Bob Hope with "Thanks for the Memories" and Jack Benny with "Love in Bloom" -- and any president with "Hail to the Chief -- wherever Doris Day went, it seemed there was someone there to play her song, "Que Sera Sera."

So, anyway, back to movie night on campus.  The Man Who Knew Too Much was going along, very well done, interesting, and then, somewhat early on...there it was -- "Que Sera Sera" started playing, and there was Doris Day, of course, singing it and dancing around the room.  And most of the 1,000 college students began laughing in ridicule.  Even in an Alfred Hitchcock movie, she had to sing "Que Sera Sera."  Ha ha ha.

And the laughter got even more scathing later in the movie, deep in the third act, when the plot was coming to a tense head, she and her husband Jimmy go to a party because it's where they know their little son has been kidnapped and is being held, and -- because she plays an entertainer in the film -- she's asked to sing for the gathering.  And their plan is that if she sing Really Loud Enough, her voice will carry through the mansion, and they child will hear it and also recognize the song and know that his parents are there.  And so, she sings -- yes, you guessed it, "Que Sera Sera," at the most tense point of the movie.  Of course.  And not only did she sing it, but she virtually shouts it as loud as she can, so that her voice will carry to her son, but it's so loud that even party guests give each other glances, like "Hey, this is pretty weird."  Which is what those 1,000 college students were doing, hooting it up.  That even in the climax of an Alfred Hitchcock thriller, Doris Day insists on singing, "Que Sera Sera."

Except --

What I wanted to do from the audience was stand up and shout as loudly as I could, "YOU IDIOTS!!!  Doris Day isn't singing this song because it was so famous and her signature song and it had to be in everything she did.  No, THIS WAS THE MOVIE THAT INTRODUCED THE SONG!!!!  It had never been heard before!  She'd never sung it before!  This is the first time it was ever sung!!!  All those other times you've heard the song -- it came from this movie, this moment!!  And the reason she's singing it a second time and Really Loudly is because it's part of the plot!"

And by the way, do you remember that Academy Award that I said The Man Who Knew Too Much won?  It was for Best Song!  For "Que Sera Sera"!

That's what I wanted to yell, but I didn't.  I just sat and watched and enjoyed the movie.

I mention this all because TCM is running it's annual "31 Days of Oscar," when every movie they show during these 31 days days either won or got nominated for an Oscar.  And The Man Who Knew Too Much was on last night.  Because of its one Oscar -- for...oh, you know.

(As a footnote, I should add that Livingston and Evans won three Oscars for Best Song, the other two being "Buttons and Bows" and "Tammy."  The also wrote the song "Silver Bells" for the Bob Hope movie, The Lemon Drop Kid.)

This is the scene that introduced The Song.

And this is the climatic scene at the party, where Doris Day is invited to sing at the piano, and as the guests watch her with rapt -- and bemused -- attention (from her intentionally singing Really Loud), James Stewart waits for his chance to sneak away.  If you haven't seen the movie and think you may want to, then don't want the full clip.  It isn't the whole final sequence, but it's a lot of it.  However, you'd be fine watching the first two minutes.
​

Yesterday, I posted a Zoom reunion with the cast members who made up the band The Wonders, 24 years earlier for the movie, That Thing You Do, written and directed by Tom Hanks. 

This is another reunion of those same castmates -- well, three of them -- who got together in 2017 to actually perform the title song on stage.  This was from "Live at The Roxy" in Hollywood on April 25th, 2017, done as part of The Goddamn Comedy Jam.

The three actors participating were --
Jonathan Schaech - Guitar
Ethan Embry - Bass Guitar
Tom Everett Scott - Drums

There's only one downside to all this.  It's that the onstage host participates, as well, as lead singer despite the fact that a) the group's actual lead singer, Jonathan Schaech, is there -- and even tries at one point to take the lead, and b) the reunion is entirely about those three, not Josh Adam Meyers.

Other than that, the occasion is still fun.  It just could have been more so.

This is another of those Zoom reunions done during the pandemic, and it's a real treat.  It was put together by Rolling Stone magazine, and is a reunion of the cast of That Thing You Do, 24 years after they made the movie.  What makes it all stand out is that it is SO affectionate.  The interviewer is unfortunately sort of lackluster, although very clearly a big fan and so most-definitely engaged.

So, here are Jonathan Schaech, Ethan Embry, Steve Zahn, and Tom Everett Scott back together again, doing that thing they do.

On this week’s episode of 3rd and Fairfax, the official podcast of the Writers Guild of America, the guests are screenwriters Chris Matheson & Ed Solomon who have written all three Bill & Ted movies, most recently Bill & Ted Face the Music.  Separately, Ed Solomon has written Men in Black, as well as Now You See Me and its sequel, among others. franchise about what it takes to update a comedy franchise and deliver laughs in 2020.  Chris Matheson’s credits include Mom and Dad Save the World, A Goofy Movie and Mr. Wrong.  Together, they talk about what it takes to update a comedy franchise and also write comedy in a difficult year like 2020.
 

A few weeks back, I mentioned that the paperback edition of Fay Wray and Robert Riskin:  A Hollywood Memoir by my friend Vicki Riskin was just being released.  It's a wonderful book about her parents -- the star of King Kong and the Oscar-winning screenwriter of It Happened One Night, along with Meet John Doe, Lost Horizon and You Can't Take It With You.  You can find the book here.

What I also noted was that she would be doing a Facebook Live conversation about the book, and it was terrific.  Vicki is a smart, accomplished person on her own -- a former president of the Writers Guild of America and former president of Human Rights Watch, as well as a former practicing psychologist...and yes, that's a lot of "formers," but she's got a lot of "currentlys," as well, including that she's on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch.-- and one of the most gracious people I know.  So the talk was charming and interesting, with a great deal of insight to go along with the interesting tales of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Fortunately, the video of the Facebook Live event is available, and I've posted it below.  All the stories aren't just about her parents (though those are fascinating), but is wide-ranging.  For instance, happily she tells my favorite story from the book which is not about her parents, but the writer Jo Swirling, one of her father's best friends, who was the book writer of the musical Guys & Dolls.  It's a really funny tale about his time at Columbia Studio and a run-in with the reviled studio head Harry Cohn.

By the way, if you do watch and stick with it all the way through, I have a sort of hidden guest-appearance.  They ask for questions from viewers, and I sent one in very early on.  Because they don't get to the questions until much later, I thought they were going to overlook it, especially since I could see they were getting a lot of questions in the interim.  But happily, they not only asked my question, but it was the first one.  Vicki had talked about her mother's unhappy marriage, but wasn't clear that she was referring to her first marriage, so I asked if she could clarify it.  When she got the question, she was so happy for it, thrilled for the chance to explain what she meant.  Later, I sent her an email and explained where that question had come from.

So, here's the conversation.  If you like movies and especially movie history, I highly recommend you give this a look for 15 minutes or so.  And you might find yourself sticking around for the whole thing.

Yesterday, I wrote a long piece about the wonderful movie No Man's Land, which won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 2001, beating what was considered the favorite, Amelie.  I mentioned that after years of looking for it so that others could see this gem, I just discovered that it was available for streaming on Amazon Prime.

Sharp-eyed reader Douglass Abramson sent a note that on the Amazon Prime page for the movie, it says -- "Leaving March 31."  So, you still have just under two weeks (from today...) to see it.

Hopefully No Man's Land will return to Amazon Prime eventually.  But if not, there's still time to stream the film.  If you want to read more about it, you can find my article here.

Back in 2001, I saw a Serbo-Croatian movie, No Man's Land at an “awards screening, since it had been nominated for an Oscar as Best Foreign Language Film.  Also nominated that year was Amelie, that was not only wildly popular, but one of the most successful foreign language films ever.  Most people knew Amelie.  No one had ever heard of No Man’s Land.  In fact, most people who saw Amelie absolutely loved it.  (Not all, there was no gray area, some people hated it for the overly-sweet nature of the main character.  But by and large, audiences loved the movie, which is why it was only of the most successful foreign language films ever.)

Every once in a while, I would come across a discussion about the Oscar office that pool people were having, trying to decide what to vote for.  What tends to be traditional in most such pools is that people mark down their choices on the bulk of the awards, but "Best Foreign Language Film" is used as the tie-breaker, since most people haven't seen any of those nominated, and so it's like tossing a dart blindfolded.  Although that year, a lot of people had actually seen Amelie -- or at least heard about it.  And so that's what they were voting for as their tie-breaker. 

(In fact, to this day, 20 years later, I am absolutely certain that there are a great many people who have never seen Amelie, but know about it.  And equally certain that most people have never even heard of No Man's Land.  Furthermore, there was a Broadway musical a couple of years ago based on Amelie, which I saw in Los Angeles and thought was wonderful, in fact I liked it more than the movie.)  

However, when I was in one of those Oscar office pool conversations, I'd say, "No, pick No Man’s Land.’”  Everyone would looked at me like I was absolutely nuts, because they knew that Amelie would win.  But I just liked No Man's Land that much.  The thing is, it was just that I liked it that much -- I explained that to those in the group that I I had seen No Man’s Land at an awards screening where the audience was made up of people who actually vote for who wins the award, and I said the reaction of those people, who actually vote for the awards, was so visceral that you could feel it in the room.  And I reiterated that people should vote for it in their office pool.  And they still looked at me like I was nuts.  They had seen Amelie and loved it.  Or knew about it and how extremely successful it was because others loved it.
 
This is where I note that I was right -- that No Man’s Land, in fact, did win the Academy Award as Best Foreign Language Film. And a lot of people afterwards said to me, "Er, isn't that the movie you said that I should pick in my office pool to win the Oscar and beat Amelie?"  Yes, I would answer, it was.
 
Here's the oddity of all this and my love for the film.  To this day, as much as I’ve praised No Man's Land, I’ve never told anyone the plot.  And I won’t here.  That’s because it has a twist that’s so great that to tell the plot would give that twist away, and the discovery of that twist is too brilliant.  Here's how brilliant the twist is -- when I was at that original screening and saw where I thought maybe-possibly the story was going, I remember the hairs on my arm tingling because if the story did go there, it would be SOOO great.  Yet I hoped that it didn’t go there, because what I also thought was, “If it doesn’t tell that story, I’m going to go home when this is over and write a story with that twist myself.”  But it did go there.  And it’s so smart and so clever and so well-done.
 
I mention all this because for years it wasn’t available (at least it wasn't included for free in any streaming service).  But the other day, I just checked several of the video services I subscribe to, and although No Man Land wasn't available for a very long time -- one of the added frustrations for my not talking about the plot to anyone -- it is actually available these days for streaming on Amazon Prime!  If you subscribe to Amazon Prime and are interested in watching it, a caveat:  make sure to watch the 2001 movie because there are others with the same title.  (There's even a new one this year for Hulu.)  And this one is about the Bosnian War.  But don’t even read the description, out of risk of them giving anything away.  
 
The only thing I will say is that the first 10 minutes looks like it’s an ordinary war film, although a very well done one, so you might wonder what’s the big deal.  Just know that it is not an ordinary war film.  The direction of the story changes after those first 10 minutes, and it's extremely good.  Just know, though that that change of direction is not the plot twist.  That comes later.  At which point, it then goes off to another level.

Know, too, that if you're someone who avoids foreign language movies because you don't like reading subtitles, No Man's Land won't likely have that same hurdle for you.  That's because, even though it’s a foreign language film, much of it centers around the United Nations inspection unit that's on the ground there during the war, and therefore when all the sides meet, they speak in English.  So, about a third of the movie is in English.
 
(And it even has one British actor in it who you might recognize, Simon Callow.  He’s had a long, admired career.  Among a great many things, he was in Shakespeare in Love as the theater manager, and in Four Weddings and a Funeral -- playing the flamboyant Scotsman for whom they had the funeral.  And has done a one-man stage show about Charles Dickens’ life.  In No Man’s Land, he plays one of the representatives from the U.N.)

A sort of postscript to all this is that my 93-year-old aunt was looking for things to stream during the pandemic, and so I brought up No Man's Land to her last week.  She'd loved foreign films for a lifetime, but at this point has put them in the back seat since she's one of those who now doesn't prefer to read subtitles if there are other films to watch.  But I explained to her about the U.N. subplot and all the English, she streamed it -- and became the first person in 20 years I could actually talk about the movie to!  And happily, she thought it was excellent.  So, I'm off the hook with her, after pushing it so hard...

Usually at this point in an article I'll embed the trailer.  However, in this case, I will not be posting the trailer for No Man's Land.  That's because as good as the trailer is, as solid a job as it does giving a pretty good sense of the movie, it also gives away much too much of the plot and gives away the plot twist.  (I don't criticize them for it, though, since as I said, it's impossible to tell the story properly without doing so.)  But it does show that the movie is not only dramatic and tragic as war is, but also absurdly funny in large parts.  I should mention, too, that in addition to the Oscar, it also won best screenplay at the Cannes Film Festival.

It's only an hour and 37 minutes, too, so it flies by.

After all this praise, I hope it can live up to that.  But I think it can.  I really love the movie.  And it’s been tough loving it for 20 years, but refusing to tell anyone anything about the story.  
 
For those who access Amazon Prime movies on your laptop and then hook it up to your TV with an HDMI cable, this is the link here to find it.
​

The other day, I got into an discussion with someone and quoted a line from one of my favorite movies -- a film that is also a favorite of my friend Myles Berkowitz, although a great many people not only don't like it even remotely as much as we do but pretty much hate it.  It's the 1990 film, Joe Versus. the Volcano, that starred Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and was written and directed by John Patrick Shanley, who won an Oscar for writing Moonstruck and years later wrote and directed Doubt, based on his Broadway play for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.  Also, Steven Spielberg was one of the executive producers.

After having referenced the movie in my conversation, I realized that the young woman likely hadn't heard of it, given that Joe Versus the Volcano was released 31 years ago, and so I later sent her the link to an article I wrote back in 2008 for the Huffington Post that's about not only why I dearly love the film, but why most people who hated it were wrong.  To be clear, I don't mean subjectively wrong, since of course everyone has their personal taste and if someone dislikes the movie, so be it, but empirically wrong, because what I've found over the years is that most people who hate Joe Versus the Volcano do so because they miss the point of the movie -- even though it's a point that Shanley explains to the audience in the very first thing you see on screen.  And then tells you again what the movie was in the very last thing you see on the screen.  And if you miss that, which he tells you (!), then you end up watching a totally different movie than what it actually is.  And likely hate it -- albeit for the wrong reason.

Anyway, to go along with the article I also tracked down the trailer to the film, and decided to watch it myself again, just for the heck of it.  And it's one of the rare trailers that actually gives a pretty good idea of the movie.  In fact, it even includes Shanley's line that begins the movie and tells you what it is.  The trailer was wonderful, so I decided to post it here.  And as long as I was going to post the trailer, I figured I might as well dive in and first re-post that original article from the Huffington Post.

By the way, there's a sort of addendum to this all.  John Patrick Shanley most recently wrote and directed the movie, Wild Mountain Thyme, that was released a month or two ago.  It starred Emily Blunt, Jamie Dornan, Christoper Walken and Jon Hamm.  I thought it was wonderful, for many of the same reasons I loved Joe Versus the Volcano -- not as good, but still a pleasure.  And Myles thought so, too.  Again, the movie flopped bigtime.  And again, Myles and I were right.  Though not for the exact same empirical reasons as with "Joe," but close.

?Okay, then, here's the article from December 30, 2008.  Followed by the trailer.  (By the way, if the bit-part actor with one line at the 1:10 mark seems somewhat, maybe familiar in his native island make-up, that's Nathan Lane very early in his career.  I suspect that he and Shanley, who as I noted is a Broadway playwright, knew other from their New York stage work.)

I highly recommend you track it down on Netflix or Amazon Prime.  You may not like it -- but if so, you'll dislike it for the right reason, personal taste.  Not because you didn't realize what it was.  But then...you may love it.

Because it's great.

                     The Best Flop Movie:  “Joe vs. The Volcano”
 
 
One of the pleasures of this holiday movie season is the film, “Doubt.”  Not because it’s so wonderfully done – which it is, on every level – but because it’s allowed the great, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright John Patrick Shanley the opportunity to once again direct a movie.
 
Therein lies the tale.
 
John Patrick Shanley is an accomplished writer best known to the public for his Oscar-winning screenplay of the movie “Moonstruck,” as well as his Tony-awarding winning play, “Doubt.”  In between them, he made his movie directing debut with “Joe vs. the Volcano,” an offbeat comedy he also wrote that has the distinct honor of being the only movie to star Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and flop.
 
Given that the other two are “Sleepless in Seattle” and “You’ve Got Mail,” that’s quite an accomplishment.  Especially consider the executive producer was Steven Spielberg.  And yet – flop it did.  Huge.
 
It shouldn’t have.  And it killed Shanley’s directing career.  And it shouldn’t have done that, either.
 
I've discovered that life is divided into two groups – those who utterly hate "Joe vs. the Volcano" and those who absolutely, unequivocally love it.  And it's about 90-10 against.   I’m with the 10%.
 
BUT...this is one of the few, totally subjective, personal opinion matters when I feel comfortable saying that I'm right – and right for an objective, demonstrable reason.  And this reason is that most people who so-dislike the movie not only missed the point – but it's a point that John Patrick Shanley wrote in black-and-white.  I don’t mean metaphorically wrote.  I mean he literally wrote it in black-and-white.  Plastered it across the screen.  And people miss it.
 
A moment first to explain “Joe vs. the Volcano.” It concerns a man who’s feeling miserable with his life, lost, adrift, when three things happen:  he visits a new doctor, he meets a wealthy industrialist, and three women cross his path.  As a result, Joe makes an outlandish decision to alter his life and heads off on his adventure to accomplish it.
 
As I’ve meandered through my days and tried to sneak the movie into the conversation of  polite society, the main complaint against “Joe vs. the Volcano” is that it's stupid and silly and unbelievable and ridiculous and over-the-top.  And it's perceived that way because the movie is very crisp, very stark and looks very realistic.  And if viewed realistically, the movie IS stupid and silly and utterly ridiculous.  BUT --
 
In the first image of the movie (and this is not giving anything away, because it is the very first thing you see), Shanley tells the audience in black-and-white that this is not supposed to be viewed realistically.  The very first image of the movie is a graphic with the words, "Once upon a time, there was a man named Joe..."  
 
Okay, here’s a pop quiz:  what stories begin "Once upon a time..."?  They are – well, okay, you know the answer – fairy tales!!  In fact, to nail this point home further, Shanley creates yet another, similar image that reiterates This Is A Fairy Tale.  I won’t mention that one because it does give away a major plot point.  But it’s as blatant as the first, all the more so because it’s a major plot point, and even harder to miss.  And just as hard to misinterpret.
 
Stories that begin "Once upon a time" and have that other, second image are fairy tales.  Pure and simple.  And Shanley is telling everyone that that's how you should look at this story.  As a magical fairy tale.  And if you DO look at it that way – like you're watching a tale by Hans Christian Anderson, or the Brothers Grimm, or Aesop, or whatever – then the goofiness of the movie, the off-beat icons, the intentionally repeated images, the stylized patter, the fantastic occurrences (like 'brain clouds'), life-changing bolts of lightning, and one actress playing all the different women who show up throughout Joe’s life, all of these fairy tale circumstances fit together and make perfect sense.  This isn't the real world, it's a fairy tale world.
 
I've watched the movie at least eight times, and almost each time I see more images and points I missed before. 
 
One example – the movie has a recurring image of a crooked line, but it's always blended into other images and easy to overlook until repeated viewings.  It's the logo for the company where Joe works.  And it's the same patterned path that the lemming-like employees take as they drudgingly march into the factory.  And it's also the pattern that we see at a distance that the island natives take when they are walking up the volcano.  And then Joe even makes a comment about how his whole life has been walking a crooked path.  So, it all comes full circle and fits impeccably together.  The movie is full of richness like that.  All part of the fairy tale world that is consistent with itself.
 
Recently, I cautiously mentioned “Joe vs. the Volcano” to my friend Myles Berkowitz (mentioned in these pages previously for his deeply thoughtful, encyclopedic and outspoken reactions to…well, just about anything), and it was with great relief to discover how completely thrilled he was to find another soul who loves the movie as much as he does – and he’s seen it 20 times, making me look like a piker.  That he agreed with everything I'm saying here is not offered as proof, just that the mutual and independent thought by a highly-perceptive fellow was comforting.
 
To be clear, it's of course possible to dislike this movie, any movie because you think it's not well made.  No question.  Or because you don’t like fairy tales.  To each their taste.  What I'm saying, however, that my experience is that that's NOT why people ever say they don't like "Joe vs. the Volcano."   (And boy, have I talked to a lot...)  They don’t comment on the characters, dialogue, plot structure or craftsmanship.  No, all they say is, "It's so stupid, it's so unbelievable."  If people accept the movie for what it is and still don't like it -- fair enough.  I have no quibble with that.  My point is that I've never found that that's why most people don't like it.
 
It is my experience that most people don't like “Joe vs. the Volcano” because they totally miss the point.  They miss that John Patrick Shanley has told them, blatantly, clearly – this is a fairy tale.
 
That returns us to my pleasure at seeing the movie “Doubt,” which Shanley directed, based on his play. 
 
Regardless of what one thinks of the story of “Joe vs. the Volcano,” it’s still a beautifully directed movie.  (The breathtaking scene when the full moon rises above the ocean may possibly be my favorite scene in any movie, ever.)  But the way Hollywood works, if a movie flops, executives in charge believe the movie has to have been poorly directed.  That's an attitude so small-minded and wrong.  Same thing conversely with the screenplay of a flop, or an acting performance.  All can be wonderful, but a movie fails for many reasons, and often they are unrelated to quality, talent and craftsmanship.  And that's why I said I was so pleased that John Patrick Shanley got another chance to direct with "Doubt” – and is now demonstrating what I knew years ago, that he's not just a tremendous writers, he’s a wonderful director, as well.
 
For those who get that “Joe vs. the Volcano” is a fairy tale but simply don’t like it – so be it.  For those who wish to continue dismissing the movie for all the wrong reasons, it’s your right to be completely wrong and not realize it.  But for those with an open mind, go back and watch "Joe vs. the Volcano" again.  And for those who’ve never seen it before –you’re in for a treat.  But the only thing to keep in mind when you do watch it is –
 
You are watching a fairy tale.  About being adrift in your often-strange life and following a crooked path to get to where you are finally supposed to be.
 
And that’s why “Joe vs. the Volcano” is the best flop movie.  Without a Doubt.
​

Yes, it's that time again.  I posted this last year -- and have, in fact, posted it annually, here and on the Huffington Post, where it initially appeared in 2007, for the past 14 years.  So, with the Golden Globes broadcast set for tomorrow night, here we go again.

Yet before we do, I even have another update -- which yet again shows another controversy with the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the organization that runs the Golden Globes...and it shows (again) that all this isn't just about my opinion.  Because just days ago, the Los Angeles Times had an investigation lead by Josh Rottenberg who wrote --

"...Times reporting revealed the group is still struggling to shake its reputation that the voters are easily swayed by high-priced junkets in exotic locales and cozy relationships with studios, networks and A-listers. Even as the HFPA fended off allegations brought in an antitrust lawsuit by Norwegian journalist Kjersti Flaa, some of the group’s own members have raised mounting criticisms of its alleged ethical lapses and self-dealing. The HFPA has said the allegations are unproven and “simply repeat old tropes” about the organization. (Flaa’s suit was dismissed by a federal judge in November. An amended motion is pending.)

"The Times investigation also highlighted the fact that the group currently has no Black members, further fueling criticism over this year’s Globes picks, which didn’t include any of this year’s Black-led awards contenders..."

No Black members.  That on its own is bad enough.  But as you read the articles below, it's context of the HFPA's history makes it all the more Standard Operation Procedure, and all the worse.

By the way, to be clear, though the lawsuit referenced above was dismissed but is under appeal, just because someone brings up your old problems -- whimsically called "tropes" or not -- doesn't mean those old problems weren't very real and didn't exist, nor does it mean that some of them, or most, or all, don't still exist today.

​On with the show...

                                                                                 *   *   *      ​

Last week, I wrote here about the wonderful memoir that has just been released in paperback which my friend Vicki Riskin wrote about her parents -- the actress Fay Wray (of King Kong, of course, and a great many more) and screenwriter Robert Riskin (who got five Oscar nominations and won for It Happened One Night), and helped found the Writers Guild.)  It turns out that this Sunday -- February 14 -- she is going to hold a Facebook Live Chat at 5 PM Eastern time (or 2 PM here on the West Coast.)
​

This is being done in conjunction with Classic Movie Hub, and you can find the page by clicking here.  Or mark down the URL address directly to copy/paste in later -- http://facebook.com/ClassicMovieHub. 

There will be a conversation and then a Q&A later for people sending in questions.

Vicki is a smart, eloquent, profoundly personable speaker, in fact one of the most kind-hearted, nurturing people I know.  And she's accomplished in her own right -- including writing such TV movies as My Antonia,  producing Member of the Wedding and serving as President of the Writers Guild of America, as well as being a former practicing psychologist, an international board member for 12 years of Human Rights Watch -- at one point, its president -- and recipient of the WGA's Valentine Davies Award for "bringing honor to writers everywhere."

So, if you're interested in the classic period of the Golden Age of Hollywood or an interesting discussion about movies (which I'm certain this will be, having heard Vicki participate in such events before), mark the day down and bookmark the Facebook page.

For anyone interested in the book itself, you can find it here.
​