Picture Comparsion of the Week and Sharon Tate Dressed Up for Halloween;)

For our picture comparison of the week I thought of how Sharon was up for the part of Bonnie Parker in "Bonnie and Clyde" but Faye Dunaway got the part.  I have often wondered if this photo of Sharon was a picture taken of her for a test of the film?  The hair and clothes look like the period.  And here is also a photo of Dunaway in the part.

Both are such stunning women and Sharon admired Faye as an actress.

Here is the surprise for Halloween:

Sharon dressed in Egyptian style as Cleopatra and Nefertiti: Enjoy!

And the best by Kerstien Matondang! :

Happy Halloween!

The Conversations: Trouble Every Day

I’m pleased to announce that The Conversations: Trouble Every Day is live at The House Next Door. In this edition, Ed Howard and I go into detail about that 2001 Claire Denis film and then step back a bit to discuss the horror genre and whether Trouble Every Day belongs to it. If you’ve never seen Trouble Every Day, here's an excuse to watch it. And here’s my advice: go blindly. This is one of those films that’s evocative and yet elusive. Rather than letting a critic’s review set your expectations, see how the film speaks to you.

This is the least mainstream film to serve as the sole focus for The Conversations, and that’s part of the fun of it. (Next month will be quite the opposite.) So, if you haven’t yet, check out Trouble Every Day and then head on over to The House Next Door. As usual, Ed and I hope that our discussion leads to an even larger conversation among readers. The comments are always open.

Previous Editions of The Conversations:

David Fincher (January 2009)
Mulholland Dr. (February 2009)
Overlooked - Part I: Undertow (March 2009)
Overlooked - Part II: Solaris (March 2009)
Star Trek (May 2009)
Werner Herzog (May 2009)
Errol Morris (July 2009)
Michael Mann (August 2009)
Quentin Tarantino - Part I (August 2009)
Quentin Tarantino - Part II (September 2009)
Pixar (WALL-E) (October 2009)

Photo of the Week for Halloween and more photos

Here is the photo of the week of Sharon from "Eye of the Devil" for Halloween. 

Happy Halloween everyone!  Hope you have a great one!

And here more photos of Sharon from this link:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Sharon-Tate

Tomorrow... a special photo comparison for Halloween... and another surprise!

Steve McQueen Picked Sharon Tate as the Next Big Star!

This is a very rare article from a British magazine called Tit-Bits for December 19, 1964:

Showpiece Special: Steve Finds Another Swinger!  By David Hunn

"What makes a star?  The ingredients are as unknown as what two flies say to each other on a window sill.  Either you have it or you haven't.  It's that simple--and that tragic." --Fred Astaire

The question of star quality, magnetism or magic (call it what you will) has intrigued the world of entertainment since kings and queens kept court juesters.

Now David Hunn, the brightest and best-informed writer on the show business scene, tries to find some of the answers from the stars themselves.

He presents today the first of a sizzling series of interviews in which 'the international stars of today' give their choice for 'the stars of tomorrow.'

David Hunn:  Steve McQueen didn't hesitate.  But when he picked his winner he put the lights on a mystery.  His tip for the top is a girl unknown in Britian, a find so hush-hush that her Hollywood studio did their best to stop TIT-BITS taking the wraps off her.

"The name is Sharon Tate," said Steve.

"You've never heard of her, but you will.  She has everything she needs for success, including two qualities that do not often go together--a wonderfully pure simplicity and very great beauty."

Producer Martin Ransohoff--now shooting 'The Sand Piper' with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton--discovered Sharon.

As soon as Steve met her, he wanted her to play opposite him in "The Cincinnati Kid," which he is soon to make for Ransohoff.  It was one swinger's compliment to another.

But Sharon's lack of experience cost her the part.  Steve said: "I even did the screen test with her"--a rare occurrence for a star.

"I was proud to do it.  That girl looks really good.  I'm sure she could have done the part, but of course I don't have the final say."

In Martin Ransohoff's office in Los Angeles I found the attitude: "Sure she'll be a star, but she'll make it when we're ready."

They refused to release any pictures of Sharon, and her agent denied even having any. 

But here we present pictures taken of Sharon with Richard Beymer.

Making a film with Steve would have been a great start for Sharon.

His is one of the most exciting talents in the cinema today.  A casual, gritty actor, he hides a Gary Cooper charm behind a Humphrey Bogart magnetism.

(The rest of the article is a rundown of Steve McQueen's career.)  For more on Steve McQueen click on these links:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McQueen and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000537/

I think it was wonderful of Steve to back Sharon up at a time when she truly needed it.  I think she would have been 'the next big thing' had she lived.

News Links for the day:

French Rock Star Johnny Hallyday Defends Polanski:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h5AQ13DgIAt44wU-QcB3Jl206E6g

For more of the best Halloween movies to watch go to this link, it includes "The Fearless Vampire
Killers." ;)

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-19160-scared-silly.html

Want a run down of what's on TV this Halloween. Here is a great link:
http://www.cliqueclack.com/tv/2009/10/28/the-cliqueclack-tv-guide-to-halloweens-tricks-and-treats/

If you still haven't seen "Wanted and Desired" here is a review:
http://mysticaljett.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/roman-polanski-wanted-desired/

And if you still haven't seen "Rosemary's Baby" here is another great review and it has some nice photos:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-whitlock/em-rosemarys-baby-em-revi_b_333706.html

Someone Who Met Sharon and More News

This is our 100th post today!!! Yeah!!!!!  Okay, now back to normal mode...

This story came to my attention via a relatively new message board called "For Sharon".  Here is the link:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/sharontate/index/

This comes from one of the members there and not from me this time.  Here is what she said:

Someone who met Sharon told me about their story on Youtube:

It was at a friend's house for a small cocktail party and she and Roman Polanski were there along with about 6 other people and when she walked into the room I just stared she was absolutely breathtaking, so so so exquisite, I have never seen anyone so beautiful.  Almost made your eyes tear up from the shine of her beauty. She was wearng a mini lavender crepe dress with puffed short sleevs and matching shoes and in addition to being gorgeous she was so sweet! Just unreal. Polanski fell asleep with his head in my lap which was embarrassing and I was scared she would get mad at me but she was fine with it, apparently she was used to his odd habits. Nothing happened, he just kind of passed out for 40 minutes or so. We lived directly below their house on Cielo and we often had people stop at our house to ask directions to her house which was at the end of a switchback and hard to find unless you had been there before. They had tons of parties so we got used to it.


I had been out late the night it happened and I saw the car the Manson people used, it was parked at the bottom of the switchback leading up to their house, I thought it was kids making out but my Mom said she heard screams, I heard nothing but the acoustics in the canyons are weird. Poor thing, she wanted that baby so bad and the baby could have survived if he had been taken out and cared for.


God Bless her and her baby and all the others who were with her on that terrible night, what a terrible tragedy and waste of young lives.

Just thought I'd share this and tell all of you about another nice Sharon board.

News:  I wasn't sure whether to post this or not?  But it has some quotes from CMG who handle Sharon's image now:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/27/dead.celebrities/

And there is a funny horror fan who has written an article called "Movies Not to Watch this Halloween or I Watched Them so You don't Have to."  He does, however recommend 'The Fearless Vampire Killers' and Polanski's "Ninth Gate" starring Johnny Depp.  Here is the link:  http://www.pinkraygun.com/2009/10/27/movies-not-to-watch-this-halloween/

New Translated Article on Roman and Sharon

Here is another translated article from Spanish magazine Nuevo Fotogramas for November 15, 1968:

Sharon Tate will make 'western' directed by her husband Roman Polanski

Sharon Tate cinemagraphically promises to be constant news of the upcoming months. For her husband, Roman Polanski, she has to interpret his next two films, a "western" and "science fiction." At least so said Sharon, who is--these days--in Paris where she has been accompanying her husband from whom she is never separated. In a specialized gala premiere, reported on significantly in the newspapers, "Rosemary's Baby," Polanski's latest film was shown. He came to release the film to 'all of Paris', the Polish director who was impeccably dressed and was accompanied by two beautiful women: his wife and Mia Farrow, the star of the film.

"It's a movie with a strange and terribly distressing history," Polanski said, "with some touches of suspense. A couple rent an apartment in a New York neighborhood and that was when strange things happen to them that are increasingly terrifying and build tension..."


Sharon has said Polanski has just rejected an advantageous contract in Hollywood.

"Attempting to return to five-year contract. Apparently, they have not heard that I already lost a few years of my life there and I do not care for anything like that again."

Sharon intends to devote only to European cinema and if next to her husband, the better.


"There are only a few directors who convince me completely in the current cinema," Sharon says. "Roman, for example, can do cinema, but his cinema is apolitical. This to me can be a serious shortcoming. I say it to him constantly but he pays no attention to me. He insists obstinately that he knows what he is doing and doesn't listen to me. It is exasperating..."

For now, Sharon will spend a long vacation in Paris where her husband is preparing everything for their next film together, the 'western.'  The film will be set in the praries of America and shot on some Parisian locations close to the captial.

I wonder what Sharon meant by his films being 'apolitical'?  Was she trying to tell Roman to put some serious messages in his films?  Maybe she was referring to the Hollywood system politics and was frustrated by them?  It seems something must have gotten lost in the translation some how?  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

I wonder if, after the 'long vacation', Sharon became pregnant and that put the 'western' and 'science fiction' films on hold.  It makes you wonder just exactly what these films were going to be about and what Sharon's part was to be in them.  Furthermore, it makes one wonder that if she had lived, she probably would have done possibly "Macbeth", "What?" and "Chinatown" with Roman (and maybe even in "The Day of the Dolphin?")  This article makes it sound like she and Roman were planning on making more films together.  It sadly brings to mind what may have been...

It sounds like Sharon's career was just getting ready to be very exciting indeed!

Fighting a Legend: Muhammad and Larry

There’s no glory in following a legend. Larry Holmes realized that even before he stepped into the ring with Muhammad Ali in 1980 for their notorious title fight. Holmes was 35-0 at the time with 26 knockouts. He had defended his heavyweight crown a remarkable seven times in two years. But when people looked at Holmes they didn’t see a great champion. They saw someone who wasn’t Ali. This is hardly a rare phenomenon in sports, but it’s especially notable here for two reasons: 1) Ali was a greater legend than most – an adored and charismatic figure who was as significant culturally as athletically; 2) Holmes wasn’t just misfortunate enough to come into his prime after Ali’s reign; he also had the thankless task of beating the over-the-hill but still beloved fighter with his fists in the most gruesome loss of Ali’s career. To Ali’s fans, this was adding injury to insult. Holmes, just doing his job, could have more effectively won the love of the people by getting arrested for dog fighting.

This famous and unfortunate clash of boxing titans is the subject of Muhammad and Larry, the fourth and thus far best documentary to be released as part of ESPN Films’ “30 for 30” series. It’s directed by Albert Maysles and Bradley Kaplan and it utilizes a great deal of never-before-seen footage that Maysles (Gimme Shelter, Grey Gardens) shot for a planned 1980 documentary that was never released. Given the public fascination with Ali, it’s staggering to think that it’s taken almost 30 years for the footage to be unearthed. Then again, it isn’t a surprise at all. Maysles’ 1980 footage is a record of devastation. As heartbreaking as it is to see Ali now, crippled by Parkinson’s syndrome, this is almost worse. In 1980, Ali was 38 and hadn’t fought in two years. Just two months before the fight, he was overweight – ultimately slimming down by misusing thyroid medication as diet pills. Beyond all of that, it’s obvious now, if somehow it wasn’t then, that a career of taking blows to the head had taken a toll on Ali’s speech and motor skills. The beloved “Greatest of All Time,” whose most celebrated fights were the ones in which none of the experts gave him a chance, was brain damaged and about to step into the ring with Holmes, who at 29 wasn’t a dope who could be roped into a mistake – not that Ali was in any condition to capitalize on a mistake if Holmes made one.

For sports fans these are painful images, all too easily avoided, which is precisely why sports fans should confront this documentary. Interestingly, Muhammad and Larry comes along just after the publication of “Offensive Play,” an examination of the debilitating long-term effects of repeated blows to the head that are inherent to football, by Outliers author Malcolm Gladwell for The New Yorker. Gladwell’s article hardly mentions boxing, but that’s not because there isn’t evidence that the sport can lead to premature dementia; presumably it’s because the dangers of boxing are old news. The tragedy of Ali’s disintegration, even before his Parkinson’s syndrome diagnosis, is case in point. Yet somehow mixed martial arts, a sport that is in many ways more violent than boxing (though perhaps not specifically to the head), is increasing in popularity. And football, of course, is America’s game. Watching Muhammad and Larry it’s baffling that the Ali-Holmes fight was allowed to happen, until one remembers the underlying motive: money. It wasn’t just Ali who risked his life for a promised $8 million payday. Promoters benefitted. Las Vegas benefitted. Sports entertainment as a whole benefitted. Ali’s well-being was sacrificed in the name of fortune. (One wonders: How many NFL players would need to suffer premature dementia for football to dial back its violence?)

Muhammad and Larry isn’t only about the tragedy of Ali, however. Implicitly the documentary suggests that there was another victim on October 2, 1980, and he was the guy administering the beating: Larry Holmes. Holmes, who for years had been one of Ali’s sparring partners, had no desire to punish Ali, and Holmes so respected Ali that he went into the match believing that maybe, just maybe, Ali might still be dangerous. If a washed up Ali had managed to give Holmes a fight, boxing historians would have held it against the reigning champion. As it was, Holmes, sensing Ali’s weakened state, seemed to try to coax the legend into submission, unable to go in for the killer blow against a defenseless opponent. The match was so lopsided that during multiple rounds Ali didn’t land a single punch. Just like he had against George Foreman in the Rumble in the Jungle, Ali took a beating against the ropes, only this time he wasn’t deflecting the blows with his arms. Holmes kept pounding Ali, thus proving his mettle as a boxer while becoming the villain he never wanted to be.

The Ali-Holmes footage is difficult to watch, but Muhammad and Larry manages to be as sweet as it is upsetting. Holmes, whose younger-years lisp is similar to that of Mike Tyson, is soft-spoken, tender and, for a boxer, rather humble. One shot from 1980 finds him lying on the trainer's table and reaching back to touch his baby’s foot and stroke his wife’s cheek as if oblivious to the world around him. Ali, meanwhile, is ever the showman; at one point we’re treated to a terrific montage of Ali performing magic tricks. Both men knew they were on camera, of course, and Ali was almost always “on,” but it’s hard to overlook how relaxed both men seem to be. In that respect, Muhammad and Larry is a snapshot of a lost era in sports and journalism: a time when athletes weren’t as rehearsed, guarded and skeptical as they are today (with good reason). In the archival footage, both Holmes and Ali welcome the camera into their lives like school children inviting a new kid into their playground games. The intimacy is striking.

It would be tempting to mention that Muhammad and Larry doesn’t pack the emotional wallop of that other tremendous Ali documentary, Leon Gast’s When We Were Kings, but to do so would be to treat this film like boxing historians treated Holmes. The truth is that for a documentary that must come in at under an hour Muhammad and Larry is impressively rich, complimenting its archival footage with some eloquent modern interviews with subjects ranging from Holmes to Ferdie Pacheco, Ali’s fight doctor of 15 years who quit because Ali wouldn’t. If Maysles and Kaplan had 30 more minutes, they would have been obligated to include one more unfortunate detail: Holmes, the man who exposed an over-the-hill Ali, also didn’t know when to quit, making several comebacks in his 40s before fighting his last bout at the age of 52. The power of the payday is extraordinary. Muhammad and Larry isn’t hell-bent in assigning blame for these chronic sports tragedies, which is fortunate because there would be a lot of it to go around. But it’s clear that someone needs to save these men when they get to the point that they can no longer save themselves. In the fight between Holmes and Ali, everyone lost, except those who profited at their expense.


Muhammad and Larry premieres tonight on ESPN at 8 pm ET, and will rerun frequently thereafter. The Cooler will be reviewing each film in the “30 for 30” series upon its release.

Hedy Lamarr and Sharon Tate: A Contrast in Glamorous Beauty

I'm always looking through magazines at the check out stands at grocery and book stores.  I now find myself looking for articles that remind me of Sharon or something related to her.  This week I found one article that is somewhat opposite of Sharon but about a woman with almost as much beauty and glamour. 


The novelist Dana Spiotta has written an article for Vogue Magazine for the November issue called: The Glamour Geek in the Nostalgia section of the magazine.  It takes a look back at star Hedy Lamarr and her beauty and brains in equal measure. 


Even though Sharon and Hedy are very different there are some things that resonate between the two.  The first part of the article discusses Lamarr's shoplifting trial in 1966 in comparison with Winona Ryder's in 2002.  This, of course, would be very opposite of Sharon.  I can't see Sharon doing that. 

However, in the second paragraph of the article, the author says: "I started to collect Hedy photos and stories partially because Hedy presented such a challenge."  This reminded me of my own fascination with Sharon.  I began collecting magazine articles and photos shortly after I was about 11 years old and I first saw her in "The Fearless Vampire Killers."  I did not find out until afterwards that she had been sadly murdered.  But she was a challenge because at the time--around 1987-88--it was still relatively hard to find material on Sharon the person behind all of the misleading and ludicrous headlines that personified her in death.  As time has went on and the internet has became more available with books and magazines, I have been able to find and locate more articles on the real Sharon. 


Articles on both Sharon and Hedy could not go without mentioning their standout looks.  Spiotta calls Hedy "a beauty of nearly sidereal incandescence."  I can picture Sharon in that same but different luminous light.  Sharon was one of light features: blonde hair, hazel eyes, suntaned skin.  Hedy was more of darker features: dark hair, dark blue eyes and painted red lips with porcelain skin.

Both could be considered what Spiotta calls "fallen star"s.  Sharon because her life was cut short too soon and Hedy because as she got older the roles were harder to come by.  Of course, the article could not go on without mentioning Hedy's brainy brillance.  How she invented what is known as spread-spectrum technology or frequency-hopping.  These days this is used for wireless communications.  In this way, Sharon often found she was misjudged by many because they didn't consider her smart.  Sharon herself commented that people often misinterpreted her shyness and considered her to be aloof until they came to know her better.  I could also argue that Sharon made some very intelligent statements in interviews.  That is, when the reporter saw beyond her beauty, some making her look like the classic dumb blonde.  For instance, Look magazine's article on Valley of the Dolls did not put her in the most flattering light and she knew it.  I've heard that Sharon quit doing magazine interviews for a time after a few like that hit the newstands. 

The article goes back to mentioning Hedy's persona saying she was one of those "worldly European actresses."  Similarily, when Sharon went to Italy, at first people thought she was Italian.  She spoke it fluently and she had a sort of exotic look that many European women have.  Spiotta writes of Lamarr: "Her flawless, impenetrable beauty should have been icy except for a magnetic unseemly quality that lent her a complicated, quicksilver sexiness.  She was desirable without being at all comely. She must have seemed very exotic to American audiences."  I think this could also be said about Sharon. 

The article pinpoints a vintage Vogue magazine photograph by Toni Frissell describing Lamarr in "it radiates her foreignness: she's more or less in drag, with trousers, jacket and monogrammed shirt.  She is hardly mannish, but in the thirties it was still considered outre, even rebellious, for women to wear pants... When Europeans like Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich cross-dressed, it acquired a certain kink, a titillating hint of transgression that only added to their mystique.  I've always thought this early era of cross-dressing was tremendously sexy.  In most of her films and photos, Hedy had a sleek, shiny, almost electroplated look.  But in this photo, she shows us her significant foreign misery.  The caption says: 'fatal Sunday supplement beauty, somnambulistic and aloof.'  That's exactly it--a kind of sleepy fatality, a resignation."  To go along with this, I found a photo of Sharon by Jerry Schatzberg were she is wearing a suit and tie shown here and one other similiar photograph.

It goes on to say that Hedy did become a bonafide star with the film "Algiers" but, that over time, she "made one mediocre movie after another."  Critics and Sharon herself both found her films in this same light at the time.  (Now Sharon's films like "The Fearless Vampire Killers" and "Valley of the Dolls" have become cult hits with midnight audiences.)  Spiotta claims that Hedy lacked a certain something.  She writes: "Although she had an undeniable sexuality, she did seem to lack something.  Her face never expressed the kind of longing that Ingrid Bergman's did.  Maybe it was the roles she was given.  Maybe what people said was true: She was too  beautiful to play a real woman."  Even in Vincent Bugliosi's infamous book, "Helter Skelter" he admits that Sharon was never really given a role to prove or even to test her acting abilities for anyone to be able to significantly judge her for her performances.  Although, Sharon--to me--showed great potential in both comedy and drama, most critics wrote mixed reviews of her performances. 

I suppose in this way Sharon and Hedy both felt what Spiotta calls "discarded and unappreciated" by Hollywood.  They never got the respect and dignity that we can imagine these two beauties longed for as actresses and people.  Though, however, if Sharon had lived, I do think this would have changed with Polanski's help.  With him she would have been given roles that both tested and challenged her. 


The article ends discussing how Hedy became a 'wrecked beauty' not only in looks but in personality.  Not only the shoplifting made her look bad but some 'creepy plastic surgeries' and the bitterness of suing anyone and everyone over whom she thought was either taking advantage of her image (she sued Corel software for using her as art) or making fun of it (she sued Mel Brooks for making a joke about her name in "Blazing Saddles").


Sharon was nothing like the above paragraph.  She was the quintessential opposite of that.  Everyone who knew Sharon says the same thing about her that 'she was so kind and giving.  She could easily be taken advantage of for her good nature.'  So while Spiotta wonders if Hedy might have been "petty and vain" we know Sharon was not.  Spiotta goes on to say that Hedy 'lacked self-awareness, humor, irony.'  In contrast, I think Sharon did have an acute self-awareness, she did have a great sense of humor and I'm sure she could see the irony in life.


But Spiotta's last two sentences say alot about both women.  She writes, "So then how is it the woman in this photograph manages to look so vulnerable?  She still captivates me."


Both women are similiar and different in many ways.  I thought it would be nice to try and compare and contrast them here. 

Also, for trivia sake:  The mansion used in The Sound of Music (1965) belonged to Hedy Lamarr at the time.  Sharon could have met her had she gotten the part of Liesl in the same film.

More News:

A look back at Sharon and Roman's friend and producer of "Rosemary's Baby", William Castle:

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2009/10/william_castle_hollywoods_last.html

And a look back at the year 1969 here:

http://sixties-l.blogspot.com/2009/10/1969-was-year-to-remember.html

For Halloween: Art from "Eye of the Devil" and Elvira wanted to be one of Sharon's characters?

Here is some art I found from "Eye of the Devil" for Halloween from Deviant Art and Google Search Engine.  Some are actual movie posters and advertising material.

Here is one last one by our great contributing artist, Kerstien Matondang!

If you haven't seen her website, please view it here:

http://www.kerstien.se/webgallery.htm

Also, I was reminded by another site that Elvira (Cassandra Peterson) was--at one point--going to dress like Sharon's character, Sarah Shagall from "The Fearless Vampire Killers."  Here is that page: http://people.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/202027/

 It also includes great wallpapers!

 

Here is Elvira's great official site: 

http://www.elvira.com/home_1.html

I wonder what Sharon would have looked like as Elvira?  Hmmm...

There is also a new movie that reminds me of a combination between Sharon's "Eye of the Devil" and Roman's "Rosemary's Baby".  It is called "The House of the Devil".  Here is more about it:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-indiefocus25-2009oct25,0,2424985.story

Here is the official site for the film and it includes a trailer:

http://www.thehouseofthedevil.com/

There are also two new articles detailing Polanski's current case from the 1970s up to now.  It has some interesting arguements as to if it was really 'rape' or not and has Polanski showing regret for what happened.  He says:  "You know, when I first met you, I promised myself I wouldn't do anything like this with you."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski25-2009oct25,0,5115267.story?page=1
 
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091024/NEWS02/710249803
 

Weekly Rant: Apocalypse Now (No Italics)

It’s 7:59 am, and I am not here. Not on this blog. Not online. Not even at a computer. Instead I’m near Arlington National Cemetery about 2 miles away from The Cooler’s home office. It rained last night, but right now the weather is dry and crisp, about 52 degrees. I am standing in a sea of thousands, about to run my second consecutive Marine Corps Marathon. The question is: “Why?”

It’s not just a rhetorical question for print. I promise you that at this very moment the word “Why?” is running through my brain as I try to stay loose behind the starting line. You can’t see me now, but it’s a safe bet that I’m wearing a stupidly giddy expression like Will Ferrell in Elf, or I look as miserable as Francis Ford Coppola on about the 212th day of shooting Apocalypse Now. If not, it’s something in between, like Dirk Diggler’s expression just before he shoots his first porno in Boogie Nights – excited and terrified. Anyway, regardless of my expression, I guarantee you that I’m asking myself “Why?” I must be, because there’s just no logical reason to run 26.2 miles voluntarily – never mind paying for the right to do it.

To be absolutely clear, today’s race isn’t just my second MCM, it’s my second marathon. Last year I wrote about my first marathon experience using comparisons I thought movie fans would understand. In that piece I mentioned that my goal was to break 3:30, but I failed, finishing the race in 3:35:11, in large part because I made a rookie mistake and got too frisky too soon, leading to a total collapse around the 24-mile mark. What I didn’t mention in last year’s recap, because I didn’t want to “play the blame game,” as A Serious Man’s Sy Ableman would say, is that part of the reason I got too frisky too soon is because a woman running next to me gave me bad information around the 12-mile mark – leading me to believe I was running behind my goal pace when really I was already ahead of it. Of course, I’m the math-challenged dummy who didn’t trust his own watch and gobbled up her poison like Snow White biting into the apple, so it’s my own damn fault. Nevertheless, given that episode of, um, influenced self-destruction I came off of last year’s race determined to keep training and come back this year stronger and smarter and ready to break 3:30.

So, yeah, that’s part of the reason I’m about to run my second marathon: I want to break 3:30. Alas, after an injury-plagued training it will feel like a tremendous accomplishment if I’m able slip under 3:35 (which just goes to show the inherent dangers of sequels, I guess). Barring some major catastrophe that makes me give up running for good, this won’t be my last marathon. I’m sure of that. My training was too frustrating this season to go out this way. I want to get healthy and start it all over again and finally get it right. But today I’m like a director who has just wrapped primary production on epic only to realize that his lead actor can’t carry a film; I’ve got to go with what I’ve got. At 8 am that process begins.

Why am I doing this? I’m not lying when I say I don’t know. Because I don’t. Not exactly. In part it’s because I want to challenge myself. It’s because running makes me healthier than I would be without it – physically and mentally. It’s because long runs help the world slow down long enough to ponder everything from the big picture to the big screen. By the end of this race I don’t expect to fully understand why I run, but if I’m able to cross the finish line having figured out what I think about A Serious Man, that’ll be good enough.



Addendum (10/26): Thank goodness that’s over. My 2009 MCM was a success in one way: I finished. Other than that it was a struggle. Long story somewhat short, the first 13 miles went better than expected. The next 2 saw my pace slow a bit, even though the effort felt the same, which is to say that it still felt effortless. I knew that wasn’t a good sign if I was going to try to set a personal record and get under 3:35, but there was still hope. By the 18-mile mark, however, it was starting to become serious work, and given my aforementioned problems with training this year I knew I wasn’t going to find a second wind. With my hope of a personal best busted, I shifted my mindset and became immediately and totally content to just manage my way through the rest of the race, finishing in a time around 3:40, maybe 3:45 at the very worst. As much as I could, I was going to “enjoy” the rest.

For a while, it worked. At the 22-mile mark, I was on pace for nothing worse than a 3:43 finish, and I was wholly content with that. Then disaster struck. Absolutely out of nowhere my right hamstring cramped. I came to a dead stop and it took me at least a minute just to get the cramps to stop to the point that I could figure out how to hobble off the course. A few minutes later I’d stretched out my hammy enough that I could walk. Then I was able to run. Alas, over the final miles I couldn’t run more than half a mile before my hamstring would start to tighten (along with other muscles) and I’d have to walk. (My first marathon I never walked once.)

But walk, jog and stagger I did. And I finished ... in just under 4 hours: 3:58:something. It was not the race I had hoped for, but it was somewhat fitting given my injury-plagued training. (Interestingly, I had no IT band pain during or after the race, even though that was the injury that threw off my training program. Also, I’ve never cramped before on a run, and I haven’t had any leg cramps whatsoever in maybe 2 years. Strange.) While I know I’m a better runner than the performance of Sunday, in some ways the 2009 MCM is my proudest accomplishment as a competitor. Believe me: When your hamstring is cramping to the point you can’t move (in fact can hardly breathe), finishing the race doesn’t just seem unattractive, it seems impossible.

But I didn’t quit. Of that I’m proud.

Photo Comparison of the Week and German Translated Article

Here is our photo comparison of the week.

Kate Hudson reminds me a little bit of Sharon here:

And her is a German article I had translated.  I don't what magazine it came out of but I would say it was in 1965-66:
Sharon Tate

If Sharon Tate really gets ahead, then she owes this entirely to the American producer Martin Ransohoff. Sharon Tate was 22 years old when she went to the producers for the first time on the road. Ransohoff decided to make this unknown girl into a world star. First, Sharon Tate was completely isolated from the outside world. During this time she took acting and dance classes--perfecting her walk and her attitude, she had many such courses to attend.


Whether the optimism of Martin Ransohoff comes true, will show in the not to distant future. Ransohoff has gotten Sharon Tate a role in the film "13" on the side of Kim Novak and David Niven. We'll see if it's followed by other film roles?

More News on Polanski here:

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/will-polanski-walk-do-math-9023

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre59m1al-us-polanski/

Want to rent something great for Halloween, try Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby".  Here is a review:

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/entertainment/x1136017744/Video-Vault-Rosemarys-Baby-creepy-from-start-to-finish

Another blog remembers Sharon with some lovely photographs:

http://vintagebelles.blogspot.com/2009/10/remembering-sharon-tate.html

I hope everyone has a great weekend!

Go There: Where the Wild Things Are

When I tell you that Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are takes me back to my childhood, I’m of course referring to the numerous moments when mundane objects – a wooden fence, a nylon stocking, a toy ship cresting the waves of blue bed sheets – are made to feel deeply magical or fascinatingly mysterious. I’m also referring to the “wild things” themselves, which in addition to being Maurice Sendak illustrations made flesh, er, fur also look like they crawled out of the brain of Jim Henson, who was my childhood auteur of choice. (This isn’t a coincidence: The costumes were designed by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop.) More than anything, though, when I tell you that this film reminds me of what it was like to be 9-years-old, like its main character Max, it’s because Where the Wild Things Are tickles memories of movies I watched repeatedly when I was that age, particularly Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz. Those classic films are filled with magic, mystery and costumed creatures, too, just like this one, but the three movies are united in my mind for a more important reason: they take place in lusciously tangible worlds.

I didn’t realized how much I’d come to miss environmental tangibility in movies until I watched Jonze’s film, but 30 minutes in I was painfully aware (again) of how often the physical paradises of old now get paved over by flat CGI parking lots. Jonze’s film isn’t without CGI landscaping – the fort Max designs with the wild things is a digital doozy – but the effects here are minimal and practical. Most of the film’s shooting, under the guidance of cinematographer Lance Acord, was done on location in Australia, marrying actual three-dimensional environments with actual three-dimensional performers – a combination that seems so simple, not to mention natural, but that has managed to become endangered in fantasy films. The results are awe-striking: boulders and cliff faces that evoke the Tunisia-as-Tataouine locales of Star Wars, gnarled forests that evoke The Wizard of Oz, rolling sand dunes that evoke Lawrence of Arabia, and so on. Max, in his furry white pajamas, isn’t the only one who gets dirty whenever there’s a rumpus; the beasts get dusty, too, and that’s significant.

The genuineness of these environments might not be consciously recognized, but it’s deeply felt. There’s an intimacy to these images that CGI-dominated films never match. Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings series got all sorts of hype for shooting in New Zealand, but those pictures don’t feel anywhere near this organic. How could they, when so much of their authentic detail is covered up by computer illustrations? For all the progress of computer-generated effects over the past 20 years, digital approximations of reality remain mostly sanitized visual pleasures. By comparison, Where the Wild Things Are is visceral and untamed. That makes it old-school. For someone who never understood why George Lucas thought the digital backdrops of his Star Wars prequels were an upgrade from the brick-and-mortar sets of the original trilogy, it’s an absolute joy to encounter a fantasy that requires no heavy lifting in order for its universe to come to life. Watching Where the Wild Things Are we needn’t squint. We needn’t convince ourselves. We needn’t suspend disbelief. We just watch.

I wish I could say that everything that happens in this film is as magical as the enchanted world in which it unfolds, but that’s not the case. In fact, dramatically speaking, Jonze’s film has more charm when it operates in the real world than in the one of Max’s fantasies. The opening scenes allow us to experience life through Max’s eyes and heart. We feel the rambunctiousness, playfulness and loneliness of childhood. We feel the security of small forts, and then we see how easily a 9-year-old’s sense of security can be crushed. We are reminded that a simple toy ship and a Valentine made out of construction paper and Popsicle sticks can be all-important treasures to a child. And we are put in touch with that too brief time when being in the company of our parents offered so much comfort that we were happy to lie at our mother’s feet just to be near her. If Jonze’s movie had been allowed to stay here, in reality, Where the Wild Things Are might have offered one of the most poignant renderings of childhood spirit since To Kill a Mockingbird. Alas, there are wild things to get to, and there are rumpuses to start.

Jonze and fellow screenwriter David Eggers can’t be faulted for following the path designed by Sendak, and in fact they do a fairly commendable job of creating a complete story that feels mostly faithful to the spirit of Sendak’s minimalist triumph. But inherently there’s a problem when the movie’s wild things don’t feel wild and when Max’s adventures in this faraway land aren’t as wondrous as the faraway land itself. A few rumpuses aside, the wild things spend most of their time brooding, whining and sulking. It’s still a treat to watch Max, played tremendously by Max Records, trying to figure out his place in this new world, but it comes at the cost of seeing his spirit swallowed up by these massively dreary creatures. When about two-thirds of the way through the film Max proposes a dirt clod fight to – get this – raise morale, it feels not like boundless fantasy but like an inmate’s improvised pastime. In that context the giant fortress Max builds with the beasts feels more like court-ordered hard labor for his initial bad behavior than a tribute to childhood imagination. Whereas Sendak’s book thrives on escapism, Jonze’s film is always dragging a ball and chain.

Still, there are worse places to be imprisoned. Though the drama is drab the visuals are vibrant. Jonze succeeds in transporting us to this fantasy environment precisely because he makes the fantasy so attainable. It is out of this world and of this world simultaneously. That said, I could have done without the vocal contributions of James Gandolfini as Carol and Catherine O’Hara as Judith, precisely because they are too of-this-world to fit the fantasy; at some point I stopped seeing the puppets and began to see their vocal puppeteers. Then again, it’s refreshing to see mystical creatures lumbering across the screen with real gravity and awkwardness, something computers are still learning to replicate. By the end, I was ready to be done with these friendly beasts, I admit, but I was heartbroken to leave their world. More fantasies should take place where the wild things are.

Photo of the Week and short article on Sharon

Beautiful Sharon Tate publicity photograph.

Also, I found this article but I am not sure what magazine it is from.  It looks to be from a British Magazine:

Hello. This is She...

The phone rings in Sharon Tate's garden flat in Eaton Square.  She answers "Hello.  This is She..."She is 22 and has just begun on her first film role in J Lee Thompson's 13, a thriller about modern Druids.  Her arrival in films has not been unprepared.  "Oh dear," she says, "I've told this story so often that I have no continuity left.  Anyway, I was in a Los Angeles Studio testing for a commercial and Martin Ransohoff happened to see me there.  He said, 'Take that girl out, we're going to put her in films.' "

Ransohoff put her to school.  Dancing, voice training, singing, body building ("to learn how to carry yourself with an upper look at the world").  It took three years and cost a million dollars.

Have a great weekend!

Meaning of a Name: Roman Raymond Polanski

Since there has been so much news on Roman lately, I decided to look up his name and see what it says at:

http://www.paulsadowski.com/Numbers.asp just for fun.

You entered: Roman Raymond Polanski

There are 20 letters in your name.

Those 20 letters total to 95

There are 7 vowels and 13 consonants in your name.

What your first name means:  Spanish Male From Rome.

Russian Male A Roman.

Latin Male Man of Rome.

Biblical Male Strong; powerful

Your number is: 5

The characteristics of #5 are: Expansiveness, visionary, adventure, the constructive use of freedom.

The expression or destiny for #5:

The number 5 Expression endows with the wonderful characteristic of multi-talents and versatility. You can do so many things well. The tone of the number 5 is constructive freedom, and in your drive to attain this freedom, you will likely be the master of adaptability and change. You are good at presenting ideas and knowing how to approach people to get what you want. Naturally, this gives you an edge in any sort of selling game and spells easy success when it comes to working with people in most jobs. Your popularity may lead you toward some form of entertainment or amusement. Whatever you do, you are clever, analytical, and a very quick thinker.

If there is too much of the 5 energy in your makeup, you may express some the negative attitudes of the number. Your restless and impatient attitude may keep you from staying with any project for too long. Sometimes you can be rather erratic and scatter yourself and your energies. You have a hard time keeping regular office hours and maintaining any sort of a routine. You tend to react strongly if you sense that your freedom of speech or action is being impaired or restricted in any way. As clever as you are, you may have a tendency to make the same mistakes over and over again because much of your response is glib reaction rather that thoughtful application. You are in a continuous state of flux brought by constantly changing interests.

Your Soul Urge number is: 3

A Soul Urge number of 3 means:

With the Soul Urge number 3 your desire in life is personal expression, and generally enjoying life to its fullest. You want to participate in an active social life and enjoy a large circle of friends. You want to be in the limelight, expressing your artistic or intellectual talents. Word skills may be your thing; speaking, writing, acting, singing. In a positive sense, the 3 energy is friendly, outgoing and always very social.

You have a decidedly upbeat attitude that is rarely discouraged; a good mental and emotional balance.

The 3 Soul Urge gives intuitive insight, thus, very high creative and inspirational tendencies. The truly outstanding trait shown by the 3 Soul Urge is that of self-expression, regardless of the field of endeavor.

On the negative side, you may at times become too easygoing and too optimistic, tending to scatter forces and accomplish very little. Often, the excessive 3 energy produces non-stop talkers. Everyone has faults, but the 3 soul urge doesn't appreciate having these pointed out.

Your Inner Dream number is: 11

An Inner Dream number of 11 means:

You dream of casting the light of illumination; of being the true idealist. You secretly believe there is more to life than we can know or prove, and you would like to be provider of the 'word' from on high.

Our great friend and contributor Tammie has given me permission to use another of her montages.  This one is on Roman to along with this post.  Thanks again, Tammie!

Make photo slide shows at www.OneTrueMedia.com

A Look Back At Sharon's Great Friend, Jay Sebring

Here is another vintage article I have found.  It is a wonderful rememberance of Sharon's former fiancee and close friend, Jay Sebring:


Chicago Tribune, August 25, 1969

The Man and His Talent: Memories of Jay Sebring

by Everett Mattlin

The papers have naturally written mostly about Sharon Tate.  She was a beautiful girl with a brilliant husband  and a glowing career of her own before her.  I just want to recall a few things about another victim of that brutal Beverly Hills massacre, Jay Sebring.

I knew Jay but then so did most of the press who write about men's fashions and grooming.  He was the first of the new men's "hair stylists"  tho he preferred the name "hair designer"; he thought it sounded less feminine.  One newspaper said he introduced razor cutting to this country. That isn't true.  Jay usually used scissors, saving a razor for very coarse, straight, long hair.  But he once told me a man could cut hair with a piece of broken glass if he knew what he was doing. 

Jay got be so well known for establishing the idea of a high priced hair styling parlor for men because he was so good.  He was just plain better than anyone else.  I know he gave me by far the best haircuts I've ever had in my life, as my wife will testify.  He would set on a low stool, moving around your chair, studing your hair like a scientist, lifting it with a comb and getting the 'feel' of it, then cutting it slowly and gently, like a sculptor working on a special medium.

He opened his shop on Fairfax Boulevard around 1960 and at first he could barely pay the $80.00 a month rent.  Then an actress friend brought Vic Damone into the shop and Vic thought Jay was the greatest barber he had ever had.  He introduced Jay to Jack Intrattor, the impressario of the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, and Jack in turn brought Sinatra to the salon.

By then Jay had it made. When Sinatra gave him a screen credit on "Come Blow Your Horn" it was the first time a men's hairstylist was so honored.  Every star in Hollywood began going to Sebring.  The last time he cut my hair, the chair was warmed for me by Cliff Robertson, and Bobby Darin took over when I left.  Jay flew to Las Vegas to cut Sammy Davis' hair.  Damone confessed to me that it once cost him $500.00 to fly Jay to Chicago so he could cut his hair before an opening.  When I asked Henry Fonda about Jay--and Jay confided to me that he believed he saved Fonda from going bald--Fonda said, "I can't get a good haircut in New York."

Jay was on all the Tv talk shows.  His prices went up, and up and up--$20.00 for a haircut, $35.00 for a haircut, $50.00 or more for a haircut if he came to the studio to do it.  It didn't matter: the studio footed the bill.  When the studio didn't pay, the actor would often go elsewhere.  Andy Williams told me Jay was the greatest, but he stopped going there because he said it was crazy to spend that much money on a haircut. 

Jay bought a Cadillac Convertible.  He bought the house John Barrymore built and that Jean Harlow lived in.  We sat in that big house for hours while he told me how he decided to become a hairstylist.  "I wanted something in an artistic vein that deals with people--and where I could keep my own hours and listen to music while at work and drink coffee when I felt like it."

The last few years he hadn't done much of cutting hair.  He had a dozen men he had trained working in his shop, he had a hair styling school, he had a whole line of products with his name on them.  He was a celebrity himself.  He was engaged to Miss Tate before she met Polanski.  He was a member of the Beverly Hills party crowd.  I hadn't seen him for several years, so I don't know if he had changed in such company, but when I knew him he was a slight, handsome young man, soft-spoken, very gentle, extremely likeable, serious, and often a little sad.

It will be interesting to see all the archive footage in the upcoming Sebring Documentary. Hopefully, it will show some the tv talk shows he was on.  Hope you all enjoyed the article.  Here is a lovely montage made by Tammie of Jay and Sharon.  Thanks so much for letting me use it here!  :

Photo and video editing at www.OneTrueMedia.com