shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 5, 2020 18:48:41 GMT -5
Fantasia (1940) Fantasia has been a favorite of mine since I first saw it at the age of 12. It forever changed how I approach music, and I found (and continue to find) the entire thing enthralling. For most, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is the favorite sequence, or maybe The Nutcracker Suite, but for me it was always Night on Bald Mountain. Imagine my astonishment, then, to discover in the course of making this thread that Bela was the uncredited animation model for the demon in that sequence. I just watched it for the first time since learning that information, and yeah -- the mannerisms, the facial expressions -- it's Bela. Plot (0-5 points): The film as a whole has no unifying plot, and yet the concept of using music to tell stories is brilliant. In the Night on Bald Mountain segment, the plot is fantastic: a symbolic depiction of night time in the old country, as depicted by a giant demon and the ghosts of the dead. 5/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): This film has lost nothing in the 80 years since its release. It's astonishingly beautiful and creepy, all at once. Exactly the kind of atmosphere I love best in my films. 5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Well...there aren't any. But that also means no bad acting gets in the way of this performance. 3/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): On the one hand, this is a side of Bela we haven't seen since his Dracula days -- the confidence of physical expression that worked brilliantly back when he commanded an impressively muscular physique. It's great to see him doing this again in a way that only animation could allow. On the other hand, it's ten minutes in a two hour film, there is no dialogue, and it isn't exactly Bela. 3/10Overall: So very very cool to now be able to see Bela whenever I watch Fantasia, but this is certainly not a film you watch in order to see Bela in it. 16/23
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 5, 2020 21:00:46 GMT -5
You'll Find Out (1940) It amazes me that I'd never even heard of this film until now (and tracking down a copy to watch wasn't the easiest task, either!). Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, AND Peter Lorre in one film together, and it's a fantastic film to boot! Released as a vehicle for radio personality Kay Kyser, he's pretty much the only aspect of this film that isn't a total win, and if you only watch the first scene (in which he is positively obnoxious), I can't fault you for stopping there and dismissing this as a third-rate film. That's my best guess as to why it isn't revered as a classic today, because nearly every scene that follows is a masterpiece of Golden Age horror. Plot (0-5 points): When comedy and horror mix in a film of this era, the comedy is usually used to alleviate some of the horror. In this case, it's the exact opposite. The comedy causes you to let down your guard in time for some major suspense to catch you unaware. The premise is essentially a variety show being put on in a spooky old mansion in the middle of a lightning storm in order to alleviate the tension that the only bridge out of town has just exploded and someone among the group just may be a murderer. It's a masterful mix of song, dance, humor, and horror, the likes of which I've never seen balanced so effortlessly anywhere else. But...why the title? 5/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Elaborate sets, lighting, and special effects that surpass Universal at its very best. I am never ever actually scared by Golden Age horror movies, but this one actually left me...unsettled, at times. 5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Lorre and Karloff both bring their A game and add to the creepiness a thousand-fold. Alma Kruger is similarly unsettling as the rich aunt hosting this party that truly believes her husband is attempting to contact her from beyond the dead. In contrast, Kay Kyser is the weakest part of the film. I'm not familiar with his radio work (time to turn in my Old Time Radio Fan card), but he comes off like a poor man's Groucho Marx here, with all the energy, but none of the cleverness. He's just a clown who isn't particularly funny, though the other members of his band (including the dog) are a true riot. 2.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Sadly, he doesn't entirely hold his own amongst Karloff and Lorre. He's truly scary in his first scene, passionate and complex in his second, unsettling during his big seance, and then the rest of the film doesn't really provide him the opportunity to do much. Once the trickery of his swami act is exposed to the viewer, the film is far more interested in how he does what he does than who he is as a character (and the film's props and effects do a hell of a job earning this focus). No real opportunity for Bela to shine, which is a shame. Lore and Karloff don't have to deal with similar obstacles in their far more uncomplicated roles as ruthless schemers. 6/10Overall: The first post-1931 gem I've discovered via this thread. I will absolutely be returning to this one again and again! 18.5/23
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Mar 5, 2020 21:40:11 GMT -5
Kay Kyser's Kollege of Musical Knowledge was a hit on radio and TV from 1938 to 1950. His band included future talk show host Mike Douglas and a cornetist with a vaguely familiar pseudonym - Ish Kabibble.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 5, 2020 21:43:51 GMT -5
His band included future talk show host Mike Douglas and a cornetist with a vaguely familiar pseudonym - Ish Kabibble.  I absolutely did not see that one coming. My favorite member of the group was repeatedly called "Ish" in the film, but I didn't put two and two together. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 6, 2020 9:15:46 GMT -5
You'll Find Out (1940) On my watch list! List getting longer because of you Shax! There is a version on Youtube with Spanish sub titles so at least I can watch. And seeing a few clips: is it just me or is Jim Carrey a reincarnated Ish Kabbible or at the least meant to portray Ish in an autobiography movie? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 6, 2020 10:32:00 GMT -5
is it just me or is Jim Carrey a reincarnated Ish Kabbible or at the least meant to portray Ish in an autobiography movie? I was thinking Jerry Lewis, but maybe Jim Carey was thinking Jerry Lewis too. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 7, 2020 21:49:28 GMT -5
Fantasia (1940)Fantasia has been a favorite of mine since I first saw it at the age of 12. It forever changed how I approach music, and I found (and continue to find) the entire thing enthralling. For most, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is the favorite sequence, or maybe The Nutcracker Suite, but for me it was always Night on Bald Mountain. Imagine my astonishment, then, to discover in the course of making this thread that Bela was the uncredited animation model for the demon in that sequence. I just watched it for the first time since learning that information, and yeah -- the mannerisms, the facial expressions -- it's Bela. Plot (0-5 points): The film as a whole has no unifying plot, and yet the concept of using music to tell stories is brilliant. In the Night on Bald Mountain segment, the plot is fantastic: a symbolic depiction of night time in the old country, as depicted by a giant demon and the ghosts of the dead. 5/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): This film has lost nothing in the 80 years since its release. It's astonishingly beautiful and creepy, all at once. Exactly the kind of atmosphere I love best in my films. 5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Well...there aren't any. But that also means no bad acting gets in the way of this performance. 3/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): On the one hand, this is a side of Bela we haven't seen since his Dracula days -- the confidence of physical expression that worked brilliantly back when he commanded an impressively muscular physique. It's great to see him doing this again in a way that only animation could allow. On the other hand, it's ten minutes in a two hour film, there is no dialogue, and it isn't exactly Bela. 3/10Overall: So very very cool to now be able to see Bela whenever I watch Fantasia, but this is certainly not a film you watch in order to see Bela in it. 16/23 From what I read, Lugosi was brought in to provide reference poses, but Vladimir Tytla (Chernabog's animator) didn't care for the results, and so Wilfred Jackson (the sequence's director) ended up providing the poses used in the final film. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 8, 2020 6:09:20 GMT -5
Fantasia (1940)Fantasia has been a favorite of mine since I first saw it at the age of 12. It forever changed how I approach music, and I found (and continue to find) the entire thing enthralling. For most, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is the favorite sequence, or maybe The Nutcracker Suite, but for me it was always Night on Bald Mountain. Imagine my astonishment, then, to discover in the course of making this thread that Bela was the uncredited animation model for the demon in that sequence. I just watched it for the first time since learning that information, and yeah -- the mannerisms, the facial expressions -- it's Bela. Plot (0-5 points): The film as a whole has no unifying plot, and yet the concept of using music to tell stories is brilliant. In the Night on Bald Mountain segment, the plot is fantastic: a symbolic depiction of night time in the old country, as depicted by a giant demon and the ghosts of the dead. 5/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): This film has lost nothing in the 80 years since its release. It's astonishingly beautiful and creepy, all at once. Exactly the kind of atmosphere I love best in my films. 5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Well...there aren't any. But that also means no bad acting gets in the way of this performance. 3/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): On the one hand, this is a side of Bela we haven't seen since his Dracula days -- the confidence of physical expression that worked brilliantly back when he commanded an impressively muscular physique. It's great to see him doing this again in a way that only animation could allow. On the other hand, it's ten minutes in a two hour film, there is no dialogue, and it isn't exactly Bela. 3/10Overall: So very very cool to now be able to see Bela whenever I watch Fantasia, but this is certainly not a film you watch in order to see Bela in it. 16/23 From what I read, Lugosi was brought in to provide reference poses, but Vladimir Tytla (Chernabog's animator) didn't care for the results, and so Wilfred Jackson (the sequence's director) ended up providing the poses used in the final film. Interesting. I'd love to see what you read. That's certainly not the consensus, but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 8, 2020 17:27:27 GMT -5
From what I read, Lugosi was brought in to provide reference poses, but Vladimir Tytla (Chernabog's animator) didn't care for the results, and so Wilfred Jackson (the sequence's director) ended up providing the poses used in the final film. Interesting. I'd love to see what you read. That's certainly not the consensus, but that doesn't mean it's inaccurate. But perhaps the truth falls somewhere in between. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 9, 2020 9:41:28 GMT -5
Indeed. The article states that the animator did not like Bela's look. Hee was well past his physical prime at this point and would not have had the muscular stature you want to use for a powerful demon. But the animator may still have used his movements and physical expressions, as they do feel VERY Lugosi to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 9, 2020 11:13:23 GMT -5
You'll Find Out (1940)It amazes me that I'd never even heard of this film until now (and tracking down a copy to watch wasn't the easiest task, either!). Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, AND Peter Lorre in one film together, and it's a fantastic film to boot! Released as a vehicle for radio personality Kay Kyser, he's pretty much the only aspect of this film that isn't a total win, and if you only watch the first scene (in which he is positively obnoxious), I can't fault you for stopping there and dismissing this as a third-rate film. That's my best guess as to why it isn't revered as a classic today, because nearly every scene that follows is a masterpiece of Golden Age horror. Plot (0-5 points): When comedy and horror mix in a film of this era, the comedy is usually used to alleviate some of the horror. In this case, it's the exact opposite. The comedy causes you to let down your guard in time for some major suspense to catch you unaware. The premise is essentially a variety show being put on in a spooky old mansion in the middle of a lightning storm in order to alleviate the tension that the only bridge out of town has just exploded and someone among the group just may be a murderer. It's a masterful mix of song, dance, humor, and horror, the likes of which I've never seen balanced so effortlessly anywhere else. But...why the title? 5/5Atmosphere (0-5 points): Elaborate sets, lighting, and special effects that surpass Universal at its very best. I am never ever actually scared by Golden Age horror movies, but this one actually left me...unsettled, at times. 5/5Other Actors (0-3 points): Lorre and Karloff both bring their A game and add to the creepiness a thousand-fold. Alma Kruger is similarly unsettling as the rich aunt hosting this party that truly believes her husband is attempting to contact her from beyond the dead. In contrast, Kay Kyser is the weakest part of the film. I'm not familiar with his radio work (time to turn in my Old Time Radio Fan card), but he comes off like a poor man's Groucho Marx here, with all the energy, but none of the cleverness. He's just a clown who isn't particularly funny, though the other members of his band (including the dog) are a true riot. 2.5/3The Lugosi Factor (0-10 points): Sadly, he doesn't entirely hold his own amongst Karloff and Lorre. He's truly scary in his first scene, passionate and complex in his second, unsettling during his big seance, and then the rest of the film doesn't really provide him the opportunity to do much. Once the trickery of his swami act is exposed to the viewer, the film is far more interested in how he does what he does than who he is as a character (and the film's props and effects do a hell of a job earning this focus). No real opportunity for Bela to shine, which is a shame. Lore and Karloff don't have to deal with similar obstacles in their far more uncomplicated roles as ruthless schemers. 7/10Overall: The first post-1931 gem I've discovered via this thread. I will absolutely be returning to this one again and again! 19.5/23 I’ve seen You’ll Find Out a couple of times. It’s certainly interesting and entertaining. I like Kay Kyser, and he was a major star in the late 1930s and the 1940s. But maybe he has to grow on you a little bit? I’ve been watching old movies since I was a kid, forty years ago, so I think I’m very comfortable with the personalities and the conventions of old Hollywood movies. (Heck, there’s even one Ritz Brothers number that I like, even though they mostly suck.) Did you notice the King Kong miniatures in You’ll Find Out? There’s a scene in a secret passage where there’s some shelves with a bunch of small monster models. It’s some dinosaurs and one or two of the creepy crawlies from the deleted “fight in the pit” scene. Just there, in the movie, for no real reason except to make you go “Oh! King Kong monsters on the shelf!” |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,865
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 9, 2020 13:07:02 GMT -5
I like Kay Kyser, and he was a major star in the late 1930s and the 1940s. But maybe he has to grow on you a little bit? I’ve been watching old movies since I was a kid, forty years ago, so I think I’m very comfortable with the personalities and the conventions of old Hollywood movies. I grew up on Chaplin and the Marx Brothers, so I don't think it can be chalked up to a lack of familiarity with the classics. Maybe I've just been spoiled with the cream of the crop? Wow. Yeah, I can't say the same. Yup. They draw quite a bit of attention to it, though I'm admittedly at a loss as to why. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 9, 2020 16:06:29 GMT -5
Kay Kyser was an orchestra leader, and that's a whole different dynamic from making films like Chaplin and the Marx Brothers and Stan and Oliver. As a mere comedian, he's not at all in the same league with the others mentioned. But as an orchestra leader, he was one of the most original and charismatic at a time when radio, movies and eventually TV attached a lot of importance to big bands and the leaders got a lot of exposure.
I think I probably knew his name when I was a kid because of this song:
I remember hearing the Kay Kyser version of Woody Woodpecker from time to time in the 1960s and 1970s.
Kay Kyser's band was quite a bit more oriented towards comedy, as you saw in You'll Find Out with numbers like The Bad Humor Man (which is hilarious), and Kay Kyser barely kept his band under control, like the director of an asylum.
He's kind of like Spike Jones, and there were some musicians (like Ish Kabibble) who performed with both Kyser and Jones.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Mar 9, 2020 16:24:03 GMT -5
The Ritz Brothers number that I like is called "Horror Men of Hollywood." They are dressed as Charles Laughton (as Captain Bligh), Boris Karloff (as Frankenstein's monster) and Peter Lorre (in a black suit, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a specific movie) and they dance and sing and it's not bad at all. (Although it kind of sucks that they didn't include Lugosi.) I thought I'd seen it on YouTube, but it's not there any longer. It's from a film titled "One in a Million" (1936) and I have not seen the whole film. Maybe I saw it on TCM or AMC? It's been a while.
Otherwise, they don't do much for me. Sometimes, the idea that the joke is funny is much funnier than the actual joke! This happens so often that I sometimes wonder if that was the point of the joke in some kind of outdated cultural way that it's hard to understand for anybody born after 1950.
I've seen The Gorilla and it's pretty bad, though I do admire Patsy Kelly trying so hard to make her lines funny. They also made a version of The Three Musketeers (with Don Ameche as D'Artagnan) that is also not good. In the episode of Leave It to Beaver where Theodore decides to watch the movie instead of reading the book when he is supposed to do a book report on The Three Musketeers, he ends up watching the Ritz Brothers version on television the night before the report is due. Oh Beaver! He should have got the Classics Illustrated version!
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Mar 9, 2020 22:11:05 GMT -5
Some Batsplainin' care of Kay Kyser  |
|
