This is a 4K remaster, but er, I’m sorting comics while “watching this” so I’m really enjoying the K-ness.

Very rock n roll.

Neil!

This guy is a good singer, too.

Joni!

Somebody!

I liked it! Even if I didn’t really “watch it” watch it.

But I’ve seen this before — it was among one of the first handful of movies I saw in the movie theatre. I’d seen all the Beatles movies, so I guess this was the logical next thing for my elder siblings to take me out to. I was ten, I guess?

I don’t really remember much from watching that time around, other than that it was… kinda magical? And re-watching this now, I’m thinking perhaps this played a part in me becoming really into going to live shows? Because this is so romantic in its way, and there’s no talking heads interrupting the performances. We get songs in full, and then perhaps somebody talks for a couple minutes, max.

It’s 90% live performance, and I really like that.

So I’m rating this on both almost forgotten nostalgia and just how you should film live shows:

The Last Waltz . Martin Scorsese. 1978. ⚅

I’ve seen the remake of this — by my favourite director, Douglas Sirk. It’s good! And strangely enough, Sirk has also redone another movie by John M. Stahl — Magnificent Obsession. Sirk’s version was better than Stahl’s, I think, so I’m wondering about this one…

… and whether the reason that Criterion released these two particular Stahl movies was because people remember the Sirk versions.

Man, that’s some drawn-on eyebrows.

No collar gap.

This is quite good! Louise Beavers is great, and of course Claudette Colbert is, too. The first third of this movie is wonderful — it’s snappy, fun rags to riches story that you can’t help love.

Then there’s the rest, and it’s… fine? The last bits drag, though.

I was mostly surprised by how little the Sirk version of this has in common with this version. His version of Magnificent Obsession is almost a scene by scene copy, but this movie has very little in common with the Sirk version.

I mean, it’s got “the concept of ‘passing'” in common, but none of the plot (except perhaps a scene or two). I wonder what the reason was — I think this plot is more interesting, really? I mean, the rags to riches bit; not the love story between Colbert and whatsisface.

Imitation of Life . John M. Stahl. 1934. ☐ ⚀ ⚁ ⚂ ⚃ ⚄ ⚅

I’m guessing I have seen this before (I mean, it’s a classic), but I have no recollection of doing so. So it’s possible that it’s just passed me by?

This opening scene doesn’t ring any bells either.

Love that shot and that juxtaposition.

Oh, now it does seem familiar to me… I think I may have seen this when I was like… ten? Or something? I think it might have been shown on TV.

The only thing I remember is feeling so sorry for the Jon Voight character for being so painfully stupid, and … that it ends in tragedy. Or perhaps just for the Dustin Hoffman character? I can almost envisioning him freezing to death on the streets or something.

Why were everybody so sweaty back then!

See, he’s stupid? He reads comics!

Oh no! Now I remember the ending… on the bus to Florida?

I’m really enjoying this movie — I’m like going “they really knew how to make movies back then *grumble* *grumble* these days”. But I’m also thinking the same things from when I was 10 — 1) why doesn’t he, like, just get a job?, and 2) is it humanly possible to be as stupid as that guy?

Nooo the Mary Jane is hitting! Not the reefer madness!

This is the kind of movie where you’d go “we used to be a nation! we made proper movies!” Because this is indeed a proper movie.

I think it’s a bit flabby in the last third? But I mean, it’s great.

Midnight Cowboy. John Schlesinger. 1969. ⚅