And as far as I know those are still the only ones available. Odd...wonder why it is only those three titles they have available.

There's a lot of films like that where audio isn't recorded during filming and added in later. When there's a lot of narration in a film, that's a pretty big giveaway. Other times you'll be watching something and start to notice mostly dead silence, other than when people are talking. No real background noises.

I learned from a bonus feature on the 8 1/2 Blu-ray last year that apparently, the production facilities in Italy were not very well soundproofed and as a result, nearly all audio in Italian films had to be looped.

Watched Le Trou today. Gosh darn is that an amazing film. Watching Secret Honor now.

And no, that's not Jack Lemmon on the cover.

;o) I'm fairly sure I joined earlier, but haven't really felt inclined to say much until this Challenge appealed.

Done and done.

Yes, I should do that...

Hmm....!

Thank you!

Hey everyone, sorry that I've been away for a little bit...life has been hectic and I've had an intermittent internet connection...and a pile of work. Anyway, it's good to read the reviews and experiences since my last post. I'm going to try to finish strong and I still have an outside shot at the checklist, but it won't be easy.

Trevor, thanks for providing everyone with the link, I was without internet that day (although I saw the Criterion post on FB over my phone). By the time I was able to get on the internet, a number of titles I was interested in were already Backordered, so I didn't purchase anything, which is just as well. B&N is probably right around the corner in November.

OK. I wrote some notes as I've been watching, so here's some mini-reviews/thoughts from earlier this month...

September 5th

• The Bank Dick
• A Day in the Country

For the first few days, I was just watching Singin' in the Rain on near-continuous loop (the youngest member of my household has developed a fascination - and quite right too!), but it's such a great film that it needs more time to comment on than I have at the moment. So, the second Criterion-released - and first with a DVD spine number - title I watched was W.C. Fields' The Bank Dick (#78). As the official disc is out-of-print, and doesn't appear to have any special features, I haven't put the time, effort and money into buying it 'properly', but I have the Region 2 "W.C. Fields: The Movie Collection (17 Classic Movies!)" set.

I'd not seen it - or any Fields films - before, and I was very taken with the bumbling, blundering persona. I was mildly perturbed by the casual sexism and violence towards children, but it was more a curiosity about whether they were attitudes peculiar to Fields, Bank Dick, 1930-40s comedy, all films or a combination. Certainly you wouldn't get away with throwing things at children any more! I liked the meta- nature of Fields' character being a director (of Buster Keaton, no less), although the multi-blundered successes (director! hero! 'bank dick'! speculator!) that all brought fame and fortune were a little bit of a stretch. It was a nice touch, though, for the bank manager to offer a handshake and not a loan reprise! My favourite line was near the end, when the newly-appreciative mother-in-law gives credit for Fields' change of heart fortune to the least-deserving (if long-suffering) person: "Well Done, Agatha!"

Despite leaps in coincidence, it worked both as a narrative and comedy. Fields' apparent bumbling and disdain worked to the advantage of the character and made it all seem fairly modern (violence aside) through his asides and mumbling. Predictable, perhaps, but amusing none-the-less. I'd probably rate it around 8/10.
[Incidentally, although ratings are useful, I find them terribly inaccurate and unhelpful. If 5/10 is indicative of neither enjoyment nor anti-joyment, and 10/10 is perfect, almost everything I watch winds up being 7 or 8, despite some being more of a default 'I didn't hate it' and others being 'It didn't quite deserve a 9'. Not to mention that it's impossible to rate different genres and intentions of film against each other one-to-one. I wondered about trying to rate films based both on personal enjoyment - which is hardly the word for some harsh films - and more technical considerations, but a) it's a lot of thought(!), b) I don't know enough about technicality to judge and c) it's still arbitrary. Mind you, I also dislike writing reviews because I usually forget something, tend not to be able to put much else into words and often change my mind about... everything!)

The moral seemed to be that being a constant drunkard will eventually make you a lot of money...


Next, I hunted for a checklist-qualifying Jean Renoir film in my collection, and came up short. Luckily, hulu had A Day in the Country (Partie de campagne) available for free. Caveatted as unfinished, but explained by a couple of text cards, this was a short but reasonably enjoyable piece. I often find it tricky to watch non-English films because my eyes don't like the switching between action and subtitles. However, this was followable reasonably well without needing to read every word. Many of the characters appeared to be mild parodies, which added a nice sense of humour to the otherwise fairly trivial proceedings. Not much happened; not much needed to. The end was... not really final or terribly rewarding, but it was both artsy, French(!) and unfinished, so that was neither unexpected nor problematic.

I found it amusing - and believable! - that the men wanted to fish rather than boat (and if it was perhaps mildly contrived that they let their wife/girlfriend be alone with the amorous Frenchmen, the actors sold the characters' interests and obliviousness well). I was amused that sleep trumped a walk in the woods (I concur!), and particularly liked the elderly mother, whose deafness made my favourite line the exasperated: "...we'll write it down."

I didn't dislike it, but I wasn't taken enough to mind much about watching it again. I'd probably rate it at about 6-or-7/10, a couple of marks about ambivalence, but at least one shy of it being thoroughly enjoyable. It's not really my 'type' of film, but it was watchable, the acting was fairly good and the comedy touches added a lot.

The moral seemed to be that it's not a good idea to leave women alone with the French...

September 6th

• Alphaville
• 12 Angry Men
• I Love Lucy: Job Switching
• I Love Lucy: Lucy Does a TV Commercial

I'd been looking forward to watching Alphaville (#25) for a while, and... it was a little disappointing. I found it slightly difficult to follow (although I do suspect that that was part of the intention), partly again because of the subtitles, partly the plot but also in part due to much of the dialogue being so deep and near-guttural. I read a piece in Video Watchdog a while back about Eddie Constantine and Lemmy Caution, and have since then been fairly keen to both read and watch all the Caution novels/films, but have been stymied by English availability. Now... I'll probably try and re-watch Alphaville at some point and reassess it now that I might find it easier to follow, and decide whether to continue passively looking for Lemmy things.

My notes for Alphaville seem to have got lost somewhere, but I remember being confused by the allegiance of the Professor's daughter, highly amused by references to Dick Tracy and Guy Leclair (Flash Gordon!) being Caution's predecessors and also intrigued by the twist on 'death and taxes': "death and whiskey." The best line was the astute observation that there is "something worse than [being] dead - [becoming] a legend."

The look and the acting were excellent, and I do like the character of Lemmy Caution. The surreality of the narrative (at least, I think that's what it was!) was appealing, even as it was confusing. Overall, I think I'd rate it about 8/10. (Different to Bank Dick, and perhaps not as good one-on-one, but despite my reservations still deserving of a high rating.)

The moral seems to be - like The Prisoner (et al.) - that super-smart-but-'evil' computers self-destruct if you feed them logic puzzles...


I got Criterion's 12 Angry Men as soon as it came out, because it's such a great film. I saw it on TV years ago, and also had the good fortune to watch a stage version a while back. I find it mesmerising, even knowing all the twists. So much so that I didn't write anything down...! All the actors do a sterling job, and the anonymity of them all being numbers only adds considerably to the narrative being front and centre. Although the bigots and prejudices and personal experiences are important to the plot, that the characters holding those views are relative enigmas makes it all so much stronger - and really hammers home the point that these are everymen.

The line that stands out, without a page of notes, is probably one of the most memorable to anyone who's seen it: 'You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?' Easily a 10/10 film.

The (sarcastic) morals would have to include the archetypal 'don't mess with the man in the white suit' as well as the sarcastic, commonsense, American (or all of the above) point that you shouldn't listen to anyone whose main line of argument is just to Shout A Little LOUDER!

I've read a couple of comments/suggestions over the years to the effect that Henry Fonda's character is an angel, and his role is to make sure that justice is served. But it occurred to me that the opposite could be argued - couldn't their be an anti-moral reading, whereby one suggests that the role of Juror #8 was to sow discord and doubt into the minds of the other jurors...!


I noticed, looking at the list on Wikipedia of Criterion Laserdiscs that they'd had a short-lived trio of TV releases. It was about this point that I wondered whether I'd have enough time to not just fulfill the checklist as posted here, but create my own Super-Checklist, about which more later, perhaps (although I now think I can't complete it, since I don't for instance have access to any Louis Malle films)... that thought combined with access to Amazon Prime, and hence a lot of free films and TV shows led me to I Love Lucy, one of the few Criterion-y titles available from Amazon (albeit only 'Best Of' volumes are available, fortunately with the Criterion-released episodes on them).

I've seen only one or two episodes of I Love Lucy before, but they were enough to know that I would eventually be wanting to watch them all when time allows. So now seemed as good a time as any to watch a couple of episodes, and the laserdisc release selected them for me: "Job Switching" and "Lucy Does a TV Commercial". Hilarious! Lucille Ball's facial expressions and Dezi Arnaz's often faltering lines would be amusing even if the scenarios and lines weren't up to much. And the scenarios in these two, and the lines, are up to a lot. First, I saw Lucy Does a TV Commercial, with Lucy's attempts to work with her husband and his attempts to stymie her. The alcoholic supplement she's asked to tout - live! - naturally gets her amusingly drunk. It's clearly an act (what a surprise, in a fictional show!), but it's an amusing one - Ms Ball does a great job of getting less and less coherent. The advert includes the following line "Spoon your way to health" that, nowadays might have something of a double meaning. One wonders if it was a double-entendre even then! I am always appreciative of actors breaking up, and Arnaz's chuckling is a great example. My favourite line, though, is also from the advert: "It's so tasty, too!" Not necessarily the best or most memorable, but it amused me particularly because there's a very similar line in an episode of the Disney comedy Good Luck Charlie, that I've had occasion to see a couple of times. I now suspect in retrospect that the GLC line references ILL.

Job Switching is an interesting one, because it's certainly an amusing plot, but it's also really rather sexist... but, since it's equal-opportunity (the men can't cook or iron) and of it's time, it's easily forgiven. The comedy is strong, even if the underlying potential message might be out-of-touch with a modern audience. The candy conveyor belt is as amusing as it is predictable, but it does lead to a great moment of comedy (referring as it does to a lesser one) in the form of the line: "There's no room in this plant for levity. However weak."

I really can't not give the programme and these episodes a review score of 10/10.

'Dr No' and 'Grande Illusion' - in the theater ?! -

September 7th

• The Royal Tenenbaums
• The Golden Age of Television: Disc One - Marty

September 8th

• The Golden Age of Television: Disc One - Patterns
• The Golden Age of Television: Disc One - No Time For Sergeants

I've heard great things about The Royal Tenenbaums (#157), too, and enjoyed it a fair bit. Not as much as the hype had had me expect, but it was quite good. Odd, quirky, well put-together and entertaining. My notes have wandered off for TRT, too, so I won't be able to go into any great detail here. Suffice it to say that I was mildly confused about the title - surely it was either "Royal's Tenenbaums" or simply "The Tenenbaums"...? - and amused that the Wilson brothers weren't brothers on screen. (I was expecting a mild twist to that effect, but it never came!)

Gene Hackman's casual lies (and ultimate fate) were very well handled - treated as casually and matter-of-fact by Anderson as by the character(s). The inter-family relationships were as well realised as they were weird, and the play at the end was a nice touch.

I'll rate it the usual 8/10 - it looked great, made me chuckle and was interesting without being as spectacular as I'd been led to believe. I also remain baffled by the DVD design, but nevermind.. I'm sure it's obvious.


I've been meaning to work my way through The Golden Age of Television (#495) for a while. I also hold out hope that Criterion will resurrect a TV arm and release complete sets of anthologies like the Alcoa Hour, Kraft Television Theatre and Studio One, etc. Fingers crossed, anyway. So far, I've only made it through the first disc.

The Golden Age of Television: Disc One includes Marty, Patterns and No Time For Sergeants all of which were later adapted into feature films. I've not seen any of the films based on these live shows, and based on the television versions, I would definitely seek out No Time For Sergeants. Not sure on the other two.

All three seem to be particularly famous examples of live TV shows, as per the introductions to each (and mentions in the 12 Angry Men supplements) and the fact that they were turned into films. Marty seems to be arguably the most famous, but it was my least favourite of the three. I understand that it was relatively novel, mildly hard-hitting and controversial, but most of that power has been lost down the years, I fear. I thought it was touching, but couldn't shake the feeling that Marty's feelings were less than real, making the putative message about finding love less than believable. Maybe I'm just cynical!

Patterns was much more interesting, but so completely predictable that I was surprised by the considerable praise being heaped upon it in the introduction. I was also a little disappointed, given that it was written by Rod Serling. The only 'twist' seemed to be the one at the end, and it was surely telegraphed in the first few minutes, if perhaps less deadly. Very well acted, though, and featuring Ed Begley for the second time in a few days. In fact, there are several links between the shows on Disc One of Golden Age and 12 Angry Men, given that all three are mentioned as being important shows alongside the live 12 and there are a couple of cast crossovers. I would never have recognised Elizabeth Montgomery, though, had her name not shown up in the closing credits!

No Time For Sergeants was fantastic, though. Utterly, utterly hilarious, and really technically brilliant. The use of total blackouts to shift scenery, while Andy Griffith narrated between scenes was genius. The entire cast was great, and there were a string of one-liners that made me laugh a lot. Out of context, however, they're fairly meaningless: "...I got an Uncle I hate!"; "It was a sneak preview, Sir!"; "Roger! Wilco!" et al. (The now-double-entendre put-down towards the farm-bred Griffith & friend at the start "they're used to sleeping with the hoes" stood out, as well, albeit surely coincidental!) Andy Griffith, from both his contribution to the introduction and within the show, really stood out to me as a great comedic talent. I now feel the need to get hold of the Andy Griffith Show!

Individually, I'd rate the three at roughly 6/10, 8/10 and 10/10. Which would average to 8/10, but I think I'd have to put the set (or at least the first disc) as a whole at 9/10.

I'm very, very glad this set is out there - quality of the individual recordings aside - and hope for more of the same. That the live 12 Angry Men is out there (and maybe others in a similar boat?) is great, but I do so hope for more!

I think you should give the movie version of MARTY a chance. Borgnine's performance is far more upbeat than Steiger's. Steiger was quite a downer in the TV play, Borgnine quite the opposite. He went on to win a Best Actor Oscar for it and the movie won Best Picture. Plus, a lot of it was filmed on location in the Bronx. They even walk past a movie theater I used to frequent.

It's been a long time since I've seen the NO TIME FOR SERGEANTS movie, but Griffith is some kind of a genius. You should also see A FACE IN THE CROWD, with Griffith as a TV star given to manipulating the audience.

I definitely want to come back in a bit to discuss 12 Angry Men, but I just finished Young Mr. Lincoln and as soon as I post my stuff I gotta go run some errands. Here's my review on Letterboxd:



Young Mr. Lincoln Qualifying Checks
-X- 1930s (1939)
-X- Language (English)
-X- Themes (America, America, Classic Hollywood, Compare and Contrast)
-X- Spine Range #301-350 (#320)
-X- Read an Essay (Young Mr. Lincoln: Hero in Waiting by Geoffrey O'Brien)

This was one of the handful of films that really, truly impacted me during my youth. I recall watching it for the first time in school. I couldn't tell you the grade level or even the class (I want to say it was a middle school English class, but maybe it was a social studies class later).

The moment that completely hooked me was the revelation that the eyewitness had divots on her nose, indicative of wearing eyeglasses. For some reason, that specific detail and its game-changing implications, just blew my mind. To think that a human life hung in the balance and something as seemingly irrelevant as divots on a woman's nose might make the difference! I think about that whenever talk turns to Ian Malcolm and/or "chaos" theory.

By extension, that also includes the figures in the story not on screen. Any one of us could unexpectedly be roused in the middle of the night to bear witness to something...or even to become the defendant, with our lives ultimately in the hands of twelve other people. Because we never actually see the defendant, he too is "anonymous" in a way that allows us to sympathize with him.

It's not an iconic moment like that, but as a baseball fan I've always gotten a laugh out of the following exchange:
Without wishing to diverge into a side discussion of politics, I will say that's perhaps what appeals to me most about the film. So many "conversations" about truly important issues take place on a very reductive, knee-jerk level with people taking absolute positions. What 12 Angry Men demonstrates is the importance of being open to giving topics more than a superficial, reactionary level of consideration.

It's one thing to be an aggressive bigot, but it's quite another to be an aggressive, bigoted juror with power over someone else's life.

(Which reminds me: the defense attorney did an absolutely terrible job vetting that jury!)

I'm unfamiliar with that take on the story, though I can appreciate the perspective of it. I think it lessens the importance of the story, though. For me, I need to know that Juror #8 (Fonda) is a flesh and blood human being who had the wherewithal to stand up for his values to eleven other people under such hostile conditions. It means more, I think, that way than if he had been a celestial being, because what makes Juror #8 so compelling is the fact that we can imagine ourselves wanting to be him, but being too intimidated to actually take the kind of stand he took.

I've always been a very independent-minded person, willing to speak up for others (much more easily than for myself, natch!) and even I wonder each time I discuss the film: Could I actually stand up to eleven single-minded jurors and win them over? I think of all the people I've known who have expressed to me that they were too intimidated to speak up at a given moment and that they appreciated that I did. Could they do what Juror #8 did, when it mattered most?

It's not just a fascinating unraveling of prejudices and a case study in fallibility, it's also a showcase of a classic archetype: the righteous man alone, digging in his heels for what's right. It resonates because it's a staring contest with our own fortitude of character in a way that lacks its potency if Juror #8 isn't as human as we are.

I just watched Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) and didn't enjoy it one bit.

The film was shot well by Peter Weir, but the story just bored the hell out of me. I didn't care about any of the characters - the only one who elicited any type of emotion from me was Mrs. Appleyard, played by Rachel Roberts. There is a living creatures motif throughout that I didn't think worked well at all. Also thought about 15-20 minutes could have been edited out with telling the same story.

With a persistent rain falling outside and today being kind of a down day, health-wise, I found myself capping off the night by streaming Les Enfants Terribles. Here are my remarks, as shared on Letterboxd:



Les Enfants Terribles Qualifying Checks
-X- 1950s (1950)
-X- Language (French)
-X- Watch films from five different directors in Criterion’s top 10 (Jean-Pierre Melville)
-X- Theme (Dysfunctional Families)
-X- Spine Range #351-400 (#398)

September 9th

• W.C. Fields: 6 Short Films: Pool Shark
• W.C. Fields: 6 Short Films: Golf Specialist

September 10th

• W.C. Fields: 6 Short Films: The Pharmacist
• W.C. Fields: 6 Short Films: The Fatal Glass of Beer
• W.C. Fields: 6 Short Films: The Barber Shop
• W.C. Fields: 6 Short Films: The Dentist
• Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
  • Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas: Bonus - Deleted Scenes (with and without Commentary)

Having enjoyed Bank Dick, I was pleasantly surprised to remember that lying around somewhere was the other Criterion Fields disc: W.C. Fields: 6 Short Films (#79). So I hunted high and low, and found it in the middle of my other Criterion discs... And it was, overall, worth the search. My notes on these are sparse - and I think it was more because there was little to comment on than my being completely absorbed. Indeed, my memories of a couple of these are already hazy, but those which stayed with me were very entertaining and fascinating in the technical details and comedy touches.

Pool Shark was slight, but the stop-motion potting scenes were brilliant! Clearly animated, but wittily so and in 1915, too! Golf Specialist was probably my favourite, with a lot of interesting peripheral characters and comedy archetypes (jealous husband, loose wife, idiot caddy, etc.) It also includes the great throwaway line - "Murder!" - that has as little impact as intended, but adds considerably to the comedy and characterisation. Easily the best bit, though, was reading the text of the crimes Fields' golfer has allegedly committed. Included are "Using hard words in a speakeasy" and "Revealing the facts of life to an Indian." Non-sequiturs, but brilliant ones! And, as I expected, he went through nearly the whole short attempting to hit a ball and succeeding in merely spinning it out. The 'comedy' sound effects, mostly caused by the caddy, were a little unnecessary, I felt. But the rest was certainly comedy gold.

The Pharmacist had some great moments - Cuthbert's name and Fields' clear (real?) frustration with his being constantly name-checked, for instance - and the free vase was such a whimsical and pointless aside that I wondered if it was referencing something in particular that is now lost to history. The saviour's appearance at the end was... not terribly surprising, but very well done. I don't remember many highlights from The Fatal Glass of Beer, bar the "fit night" gag and my complete agreement with how it ultimately plays out.

Thinking about it, I may have conflated The Barber Shop with The Pharmacist... are they very similar in sub-plot, or am I crossing events from one into the other? I don't recall... The barber gags are predictable, but well done. The Dentist appears to be one of Fields' most famous, and I enjoyed it, but didn't have much to think about or write about. The over-exaggerated reactions by his patients were very amusing, I thought.

I'd give them marks approximating 8/10, 9/10, 8/10, 5/10, 7/10 and 7/10. Which probably averages to 7/10, but overall I think these shorts deserve... yes, 8/10.



I can't work out why I've not seen Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (#175) before. It's directed by Terry Gilliam, and I like Terry Gilliam. It stars Johnny Depp, and I like Johnny Depp. And yet it took this month for me to actually sit down and watch it. And it's every bit as bizarre as I'd expected! At several points, I was a little unsure about the plot and thought I might have missed something. Every time, though, it seemed more likely that it was the stream-of-consciousness nature of the film, which after all is a drug-addled 'trip' with all the meanders and weirdnesses that that implies.

The first thing that struck me was the excess of Tom Jones music. This settled into a wider variety of songs eventually including the classic drug-related White Rabbit. Also featured: the voice of Debbie Reynolds! I couldn't quite decide whether "enjoyment" was or is the right word for this film, but it was certainly entertaining. And I did like the moment where Johnny-Hunter-Whosit described how to deal with a police chase: "Few people understand the psychology of dealing with a highway traffic cop. Your normal speeder will panic and immediately pull over to the side. This is wrong. It arrouses contempt in the cop heart."

"Just another Freak in the Freak Kingdom," indeed. The whole way through, I couldn't place the not-Depp character, having somehow forgotten the cast list until the credits rolled. Shortly after reading 'del Toro', I realised why his face rung a bell - he reminded me of the chap who was in the short-lived Terriers TV show a year or so ago, Michael Raymond-James. Not relevant, but interesting to me! I also watched the three deleted scenes - first without, then with Terry Gilliam talking over the dialogue. One was set in the race pits, and did not seem interesting, even with Mr Gilliam explaining it. One involved a lengthy aside about faux cults and was... interesting. As interesting was Mr Gilliam mentioning that there were real precedents to the falsehoods. Lastly, a scene that seemed reasonably pointless until Mr Gilliam spelled out the point. Whereupon it became poignant and worthwhile.

I'd rate it a 9/10 experience for me, maybe 10/10 on a good day (but possibly 8 on a bad one).

Yes, I saw it on the Oscar winners list and hoped he was rewarded for more than just the - as I saw it - tedium of "reality". (I fear that some actors/films are rewarded for "grit" and "realism" rather than quality... the 'worthy' note.) So I'm glad to read a positive take. I suspect I'll get to Marty the movie at some point.

I shall write that down on one of my many - many! - lists of things to hunt out when I have time, money, etc. Griffith is certainly working his way up several of my lists, though.

Similarly, I want to comment on your comments, but I'm out of time tonight and likely busy tomorrow... Soon, though.

The defendant isn't totally anonymous. We know that he is a member of a minority group from the reactions of the bigots. On my second viewing, I realized that he must be Hispanic. This knowledge was a result of what for me was probably the most shocking aspect of the movie-that a bigot of the time would feel completely comfortable arguing that the defendant must be guilty because he is Hispanic, with another Hispanic sitting on the jury.


Of course, it's not unheard of for jurors to lie during voir dire.

I have no doubt that I would stand up for my position, and not change simply to reach a unanimous verdict, but I'm not so confident about persuasion. I think that this is where the movie veers into fantasy. I think that the odds that the bigots played by Ed Begley and Lee J. Cobb would both reverse their position are long.

The most horrifying aspect of the movie, for me, is the regular guy played by Robert Webber, who would convict (or acquit) the defendant so that he wouldn't miss a baseball game.

I always think, when I am summoned for jury duty, about how much more useful it would be to show this movie instead of the video by the assignment judge. The result would be a higher percentage of acquittals, so there is no danger of that happening.

However, the sort of thing that happens in this movie can actually happen in real life. The recent acquittal of Casey Anthony shows that sometimes a jury requires more than that the prosecution charge the defendant with a horrific crime to achieve a conviction.

One of the most interesting aspects of this movie, for me, is that you don't know whether the defendant is guilty. He may have done it, but the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. We know, from the significant number of wrongful convictions that have been reversed, that some juries cannot be applying the correct burden of proof in their deliberations. The movie does not concern itself, in the end, with the question of who actually was guilty. It presents a situation in which the killer is the only one who can truly know what happened, but shows the way that the process should work to achieve society's determination in the matter.

You should do it as soon as possible, while the TV episode is fresh in your memory (or revisit the TV episode before or after watching the movie).

I saw the movie long before seeing the TV show, so I didn't really have the opportunity for comparing the performances, writing and direction. This sort of comparison is likely to be of great interest for movies of this period, given the competition between TV and movies at this time.

Fields' persona was quite unique to him. He was truly one of a kind. He was quite the misanthrope, which is one reason I like him so much. His literary spiritual godfather was Micawber in Dickens' "David Copperfield," a character Fields in fact played in the 1935 MGM adaptation of that book. The hen-pecked character he plays in BANK DICK echoes characters he played in some of his earlier films like IT'S A GIFT and THE MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE. More often he played a man with outsized dreams but little resources. You need to see his other Universal films, YOU CAN'T CHEAT AN HONEST MAN, in which he plays a circus owner, and NEVER GIVE A SUCKER AN EVEN BREAK, in which he plays himself. Not to mention MY LITTLE CHICKADEE, in which he co-stars with Mae West. He often wrote his own dialogue. If you noticed the writing credit in BANK DICK, Mahatma Kane Jeeves (a takeoff on the old line, "My hat, my cane, Jeeves"), that's a Fields pseudonym.

The golf routine he does in GOLF SPECIALIST is repeated, with some variations, in some of his features.

Fields is my favorite comic actor on film. I love his dialogue and way with words: "Don't be a jabbernowl, don't be a luddy-duddy, don't be a mooncalf--you're none of those, are you?" "Beer flowing over your grandmother's paisley shawl."

One of the horror related Mill Creek 50 movie sets had one of these TV episodes/movies and it was really good. I can try and dig up the name if anyone wants but it's about a guy that is trying to travel by ship. He gets on board one and the captain eventually finds that he can't drop him off at any port, or transfer him to any other ship. Once the place he's trying to take him finds out who he is, they immediately deny his entry. He's obviously well known and did some bad stuff but the details are left as a mystery. The captain wants him off, once he figures out there's something up with the guy, but isn't just going to throw him overboard.

I may be mistaken, but I believe it's stated that he's Puerto Rican. So, yes, we do know some things about him, but even though we may be of a different race, he's anonymous enough that it's not difficult at all to see ourselves in his situation and at the mercy of the prejudices (whatever they may be) of a jury. We all belong to some group - race, ethnicity, economic class, etc. - that has an exploitable, unpopular stereotype.

Oh, certainly. And for all we know, the ones rejected were so terrible, these looked like the fair-minded candidates.

The power of the bully lies in the willingness of others to capitulate just to mollify him. He can be out-bullied, and that's really what Juror #8 does. Some bullies can admit defeat. Some can't.

The scariest part about that is that in the 50 years since the film was made, I imagine that there would be more than one juror with that kind of view about it, particularly around January during the NFL playoffs or March during the NCAA tournament.

I couldn't agree more. The jury in any trial is, of course, restricted to knowing only what is shared in court about the events at hand. Our perspective as viewer is even further removed, confined only to what is debated in the jury room. It's a handicap of sorts - we have even less knowledge than the jurors - but that's what drives home the point that all a jury can do is sift through what they've been told happened as they form their verdict. We're so accustomed as viewers to being omniscient that this lack of access to more information than the characters forces us to scrutinize everything.

In some ways, though, we're a step ahead of the characters. We can see what Juror #8 is doing, and where the momentum is headed. We cannot, however, anticipate what evidence or reasons will be thrown against one another because we have no idea what evidence or reasons even exist. It's brilliant.

It occurs to me that with the Compare & Contrast theme, perhaps next year we ought to institute a rule that you can only check that as one of your viewed themes if you watch/listen to whatever other version is included in the DVD/Blu-ray. I hadn't really given it much thought until earlier when I reflected on the fact that I had checked out Young Mr. Lincoln on DVD from the library without delving into its bonus content. It's a non-factor in my checklist because I had already taken care of five themes (and then some!), but it seems like maybe we should do something with that one in the rules.