Todd’s Movie Blog

Saw a picture of the new actor as Superman for the upcoming Man of Steel, Henry Cavill.  Not sure how I think about him.  Physically he fits the bill looking all buff and broad shouldered.  What has been giving me pause is his dark and brooding scowl.  I get the feeling that the film makers are trying to make Superman be a bit more like their successful Batman films that Christopher Nolan did, which is a big mistake.  Batman and Superman are completely different characters.

Batman is a revenge fantasy so the dark and brooding hero works. But Superman was always an allegory for the immigrant experience, coming to America, making good and in return giving back to the country that has been good to you.  He has always been a lighter character and doesn’t work as an angry hero.  Let’s face it, an indestructible being who can punch out buildings who is dark angry and brooding isn’t heroic, he’s a scary villain, ala Terrence Stamp’s General Zod.

It works for Batman because he is human and vulnerable, but Superman doesn’t operate on that primal level.  There is a reason he has been called the Big Blue Boy Scout.  Batman is a flexible character.  He can be goofy and he can be menacing, both for the same reason.  He can be goofy, ala Adam West, because he is a man running around dressed like a  bat, and he can be menacing, ala Christian Bale, because he is running around dressed like a bat, which is crazy.

But Superman, he can’t pull off that kind of range.  He has a very narrow area that he can operate in, he can be a little goofy and heroic, ala Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh,  he can be stern and fatherly, ala George Reeves, what he can’t be is dark and menacing.  That’s why his greatest enemy is Lex Luther’s criminal scientist and not The Joker’s murderous psycho.

Hmmm, my first two films both concern fighting Nazis. Coincidence? I always like to say Casablanca is an action film for people that don’t like action movies and a romantic film for people that don’t like romantic movies. Though it contains both elements, they aren’t the main focus of the fillm, which is about one man’s redemption.

I know that most would argue the main focus is about a love triangle between the three principles and which one Ingrid Bergman will end up with.  And I won’t disagree that that has a major influence on Humphrey Bogart’s actions in the last third of the film, but for me the main focus of the film is Bogart’s character shift from a hurt and broken hearted man hiding behind a self centered, cynical shell to self sacrificing patriot.  He is the main focus of the film  and the opening has most people talking about him until he is introduced and then everything revolves around him because he holds the maguffin everyone is after and it is his decision that will affect everyone involved and possibly the war.

I first saw Casablanca in college, which probably affects how I look at it.  Technically it was during the summer when I was working at Cedar Point in the late eighties and the movie that had been scheduled for Employee Movie Night had been cancelled, apparently it had already been rented, (looking back I can’t remember what the other film was, probably Lethal Weapon or Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure) and they were showing Casablanca instead.  About half the group left, probably to see if they could find a place that sold beer on a Sunday night, but I stayed and am glad I did.

Like most people who see Casablanca for the first time, I was immediately captivated by it.  The dialogue was amazing, so many witty one liners. My favorites are Claude Rains believing Bogie left America for killing someone because Rains is a romantic, and Bogie telling Veidt that there are some neighborhoods in New York City the Nazis shouldn’t try to invade.

I had seen Bogart in movies before, but this was the first time I had seen BOGART, so cool, so cynical and tough, and so human.  For the first time I saw that you could be a man and still cry without feeling you were weak.  Important lesson for a twenty year old that women tended  not to notice (starts humming Call Me Mr. Celophane).

The film also rekindled my love of old movies.  Something I had given up on in high school.  Nobody cared about Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein or To Catch a Thief, it was Porkies and Friday the 13th 3D.  So I put it aside thinking it was a part of childhood, and then Casaclanca came along and I realized I could still like old films and new ones, they weren’t mutually exclusive.  It was the begining of a beautiful fanship.

I’m not writing about movies in this article, but on something else, my Kindle, or more specifically the pricing of certain books on it.  Since I got my Kindle a few weeks back, I have loved it.  I began downloading free books and bought several mysteries and horror books, usually in the $.99 to $4.99 range.

But I am noticing there are a lot of books that are almost full price as you would pay in the store for a physical copy.  $9.99 seems overpriced for Rex Stout reprints. And new books can be at a minimum of $14.99.  It is perplexing.  After all I’m not paying for the paper and hard cover of a new book, all I’m really paying for is the text.  So why is it as expensive as buying a physical book?

I discovered the answer the other day while surfing Amazon.  The price is set by the publisher.  Makes you think doesn’t it.  Though there are no printing or binding costs, there is still the cost of putting the text into a file for downloading, but come on, full price for e-books is kind of pushing it.

Do I feel like I’m being gouged like I am at the gas pump?  Yeah, but I’m a voracious reader and so just like pumping gas in the car, I’m pumping books into my Kindle.  I know no one forced me to buy the new Dresden Files book Ghost Story or the Mickey Spillane/ Max Allan Collins collaboration The Big Bang, but like a good American I’m gonna bitch about it.

Well now that I got that off my chest I will return this site back to movies, and finish the last few chapters of Ghost Story.  Thanks for letting me vent.