Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘The 1960s’

Attachment-1-976

Source: Classic Film & TV Cafe- Angie Dickinson & Efrem Zimbalist 

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

A Fever in The Blood is a picture of courtroom drama and political cinema, intrigue, and ambition. You have three powerful influential ambitious men who want to be the next governor of their state, which is never named in the movie. A sitting city judge, (played by Efrem Zimbalist) a district attorney, (played by Jack Kelly) and a sitting U.S. Senator. (Played by Don Ameche) And while all of this is going on you have high profile murder case involving a successful local businessman and his separated dead wife. With the husband being accused of the crime.

And you also have the adorable, gorgeous, and sexy Angie Dickinson, who has a smaller but very important character in the movie as the wife of Senator Alex Simon (played by Don Ameche) who is more interested in Judge Leland Hoffman (played by Efrem Zimbalist) and sees her husband as too power hungry and ambitious, as well as somewhat shady. I mean the cast and characters alone should get you interested in this movie. Unless you just hate courtroom dramas and fictional political films.

You have this local murder case in an unknown city with the District Attorney Dan Callahan (played by Jack Kelly) deciding to prosecute the case himself instead of assigning the case to one his top deputies. Because again Callahan wants to be governor of this mysterious state that will go nameless simply because it is never announced what state this movie takes place in. You have Judge Leland Hoffman who only gets this case assigned to him because he does his own wheeling and dealing ( I hate that expression) And Senator Alex Simon who is probably the favorite going into to win his unknown party’s nomination for governor, but knows this murder case could be the boost that his top two opponents need to win the nomination. And actually ends up bribing Judge Hoffman in the Judge’s office to let the case go.

There’s a lot of backroom inside politics in this movie. That any great high profile drama has. The movie is also over two-hours but more than worth the time to watch it. Especially if you just like seeing Angie Dickinson in a great movie and she’s had several. Not a movie for people simply looking for romantic comedies and softball humor. There’s a good deal of humor in this movie, but a lot of that involves Don Ameche, as well as how Jack Kelly and Efrem Zimbalist in the courtroom. With the District Attorney accusing the Judge of ruling against him for political reasons. Great movie for political junkies such as myself but also for people who like courtroom dramas and even soap operas.

Attachment-1-977

Source: Classic Film & TV Cafe- Angie Dickinson

Classic Film and TV Cafe: A Fever In The Blood 1961- Angie Dickinson & Efrem Zimbalist

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Attachment-1-798

Source: Joan Collins Archive

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Just to be personal for a minute. I’ve been thinking about this movie a lot lately, because I really love Joan Collins the entertainer. The great actress, the great wit, etc. The beautiful baby-face, voice, keen intelligence, and honesty as well. She reminds me a lot of Ava Gardner and Elizabeth Taylor who all had those qualities as well. I have 3-4 Joan Collins movies on DVD and got the urge to see one of her movies and was also thinking about Ocean’s Eleven from 1960, (the original and best Ocean’s) and decided to look at Seven Thieves again. Saw the movie about two weeks ago and saw this blog piece about it on Joan’s blog and that is why I’m writing about it now.

I swear other than maybe Brigitte Bardot, Joan Collins must have been the cutest woman in France when this movie was made. She’s her always beautiful, adorable, and witty self in this movie. And she relates very well with Rod Steiger. (The lead on the caper in the movie) If you’re familiar with Ocean’s Eleven 1960 and like that movie, you’ll like Seven Thieves as well. Except this time in Seven Thieves the beautiful lead actress (Joan Collins) has a major role in the movie. Angie Dickinson had an important, but fairly small role in Ocean’s. You only see Angie for maybe 10 minutes in Ocean’s.

Joan is not just the lead actress in Seven Thieves, but she’s in most of the movie. She’s part of the planning of the caper and in on the caper, as well as escape later on in the movie. With Edward Robinson playing the mastermind of the caper and Rod Steiger as his director sort of like a head coach for a football team reporting to a general manager.

If you like a movie full of stars, a star-studded affair (so to speak) then you’ll also like Seven Thieves. Ed Robinson as the mastermind of the caper. Rod Steiger playing the manager of it. Eli Wallach as the top lieutenant. And of course Joan Collins as the beautiful and adorable distraction and serving as the lookout so the men can get into the safe and get the money out of it before they’re caught.

And again to get back to Ocean’s Eleven where in Ocean’s they crew there is in Las Vegas to rob several casinos all on the same night, which granted lets say takes a lot more balls and more ambitious (to be cleaner) Seven Thieves takes place on South France on the Mediterranean. Where all the members of the crew are from somewhere other than France. But the crew other than Rod Steiger has been there for a while specifically to case the joint (so to speak) and prepare for this job. And like in Ocean’s where the whole crew is from somewhere other than Las Vegas and even Nevada, the crew in Seven Thieves are not even French.

I believe Seven Thieves is a great caper heist type movie. One of those movies where the brains of the operation (played by Ed Robinson) where the crew that is put together is working with each other for the very first time and you have the lead character as far as the man running the operation (played by Rod Steiger) who doesn’t know anyone in the crew other than the man who hired him and is put in a tough situation. Doesn’t know who he can trust and what each member brings to the operation. And keep in mind all the crew members are criminals. Which is never the most trust worthy bunch. (To say the least) Not even criminals tend to trust criminals.

And the manager of the crew is having to get to know all his members while the process of the caper is put in place. The preparation and then the execution of the caper. And also any movie that has Ed Robinson, Eli Wallach, Joan Collins, and Rod Steiger as well, you’re going to get a lot of good humor in. (The nature of the characters) Which makes for a very entertaining movie.

Attachment-1-799

Source: Lillis Lismauya

Lillis Lismauya: Seven Thieves 1960- Full Movie

Read Full Post »

“Dr. Martin Luther King, politically was a De…”

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Politically Dr. Martin Luther King, politically was a Democratic Socialist and proud of it. At least when it came to economic policy and foreign policy. He was a democratic collectivist in the sense he believed that the job of government especially the central government, was to see that everyone was taken care of and no one had to go without. And believed in the democratic socialist model of the welfare state that is common in Scandinavia, where the job of the central government is to seen that a lot of the people’s needs are met by the government. Education, health insurance, health care, child care, very generous benefits for the working poor and non-working poor, etc. But he also had what’s called a classical liberal streak (that I call a real liberal streak) where all Americans are entitled to basic individual and equal rights. This quote in this photo is a perfect example of that. Where he’s saying that, “man is not made for the state, but the state is made for the man.

Individuals, don’t get their power from government, but vice-versa. All of our elected officials are exactly that. They have to run in order to serve us and be given the power and responsibility that we the people give them. The people aren’t required to serve the government and serve the politicians, other than obeying the law and cooperating with law enforcement. We don’t have all of these individuals rights under the Bill of Rights, because the current party in power at any given time says we do. Those individuals rights are constitutional and guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. And it’s the job to make our rights are protected. Not to pick and choose who has them and who doesn’t. Which is one reason why I’m such a big believer in civil liberties and freedom of choice and so opposed to political correctness. Dr. King here is speaking for We The People in an individualist way. Saying that we as Americans have basic individuals rights that don’t come from government.

Something that I disagree with Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists on, is the relationship between government and society and government and the people. The socialist-left, tend to combine those groupings into one group. When they say society has done this and provided the people with these things or this country does this for it’s people, they mean the government does these things for the people. When in fact government is the people that are supposed to work for the people and in many cases are elected. Society, is the people and in many cases the people are responsible for job creation, providing health care, education and so-forth and in many cases that is not done by government at all, not even through the financing. But that these services are provided by the private sector, the people who work for private organizations and business’s. When Dr. King was talking about We The People here, he was talking about the basic individuals of the people. Not government and saying that government gets all of their power from the people they’re supposed to serve.

Read Full Post »

“I have a dream that one day my children will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.’ Dr. Martin Lu…”

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

“I have a dream that one day my children will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.” Dr. Martin Luther King, the leader of the African-American civil and equal rights movement of the 1960s. Not the only leader, but the leader as far as his importance and what he accomplished for that community. And I’m just quoting what he said in his 1963 March on Washington in his I Have a Dream speech. Dr. King, at the very least wanted an America where his family and the African-American community, would no longer be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Even if he didn’t mean that for America as a whole, lets apply it to the rest of the country anyway. Lets create an America where individuals are judged simply as that. As individuals and not members of this group or any other group. But simply as people and what they have to offer and where they come up short simply as individuals. That is what the vision of a color and race-blind country would be.

Whether someone is racist towards one race of American or another, they’re still racists. If you judge people simply by their race and decide they should be denied access in America simply because of their race, even if you’re attentions are good, you’re guilty of racism. No matter what race you’re a member of and what race or races you intend to benefit and what race or races you seek to deny. That is the opposite of a color and race-blind country. That is not Dr. King’s dream, but the exact opposite of it. How well and how better off would we be as a country if racism and other forms of bigotry, whether they’r targeted against people simply because of their ethnicity religion, gender, or sexuality. We’re not talking about levels of poverty that we are today if racism is simply not part of the picture. Because no one would be denied schools and employment, simply because of their race or any other characteristic that’s part of their DNA. And to say that this group of Americans has been denied access because of their race, now we have to benefit those people by denying other races, is also racism. But from a different direction.

Racism even if it’s used to benefit other groups at the expense of different groups, is still racism. And goes against Dr. King’s dream of a color and race-blind country. What we should do instead is make Dr. King’s dream a reality. And outlaw the use of racism when it’s used to deny any American access, simply because of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality. Whether it comes from the private sector or government. And instead don’t automatically notice one’s complexion when you first seem them and think they must be this way, because this is how they look. But instead see a person and someone you can either get along with and work with or not, because of how you individually relate with each other as people, but because of how you were born and how you look. That I believe is the America that Dr. King wanted. An America that worked for everybody based on what you did for it and what you did for yourself to make yourself the most productive and successful person you can be. But not because of how you were born and your racial characteristics.

Read Full Post »

Dr. MLK

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Democratic Socialists of America: Thomas F. Jackson- Martin Luther King for Our Times

What Thomas Jackson was writing in his DSA piece about Martin King was the next stage of Dr. King’s civil rights and really people’s right campaign. His Poor People’s Campaign and his campaign for economic justice. Dr. King, was the Henry Wallace or Norman Thomas of his time. The 1950s and 60s version of Bernie Sanders. A hard-core self-described Democratic Socialist. Who saw racial bigotry and poverty, especially poverty that overwhelmingly affects one race of Americans over everyone else, as a horrible tragedy. As a national man-made disaster that had to be dealt with right away. Not just for people who suffer in deep poverty, but for the country as a whole. The fewer people you have in poverty the stronger economy you’ll have. More people working and consuming quality products.

Dr. King’s, vision of economic justice not just for African-Americans, but Americans in general was a welfare state that was big enough so no one had to live in poverty. Where all American workers could organize and become members of labor unions. Where the Federal Government guaranteed a national basic income for all of it’s citizens. Where no American was so wealthy that any other American had to live in poverty. Where quality education and housing would be available to all Americans. His agenda, would be even radical even today. Senator Bernie Sanders, is a self-described Democratic Socialist today. But a lot of his followers who are even to the left of Bernie are still afraid of that label and as a result won’t own their own politics. So you could imagine how Dr. King’s economic vision was viewed as back then.

Similar to Senator Sanders, I share many of Dr. King’s goals, but I don’t share the same vision for how to achieve them. But what I like and respect about both them is that they both put their visions and plans out there. And then let people let them know how they feel about them. Dr. King, didn’t want to assist people in poverty. He wanted to end poverty and have an economy where everyone could get educated and get good jobs. Including taxing the wealthy heavily to fund programs to help people achieve their own economic success. Which would be form of wealth redistribution. He put his whole agenda post-civil rights movement and the Fair Housing Law of 1968 out there. About what the next stage of his human rights campaign would have gone into the 1970s.

There was nothing mushy-middle about Dr. King. The civil rights movement of the 1960s was not considered mainstream. It almost destroyed the Democratic Party in the South. But as Dr. King said, ‘it’s always time to do the right thing.’ If something is right you do it whether it’s popular or not. Civil and equal rights are now the backbone of American liberal democracy. But they weren’t even in the 1960s and after that campaign was won. Dr. King didn’t decide to move to the center. But instead moved even farther forward. With his own democratic socialist vision for America that unfortunately, because of his assassination he didn’t have much of an opportunity to see it through. And his movement didn’t really have anyone as strong as him that could pick up his mantle and move the ball forward for his campaign.

Read Full Post »

TIME

Source: TIME: Blog: Charlotte Alter: Here’s What All Successful Student Protests Have in Common

What separates the student protest movements of the 1960s from today, is that the 1960s protesters were protesting for freedom. Protesting for civil and equal rights for all Americans. Protesting in favor of free speech on campus and in general. Protesting against an unjust war that they hated and so they wouldn’t have to go fight in that war themselves. The so-called student protesters today are protesting in favor of political correctness over Freedom of Speech. They want a special new right for minorities. The Right Not to be Offended. No American currently has that right in the U.S. Constitution, but these New-Left protesters feel that minorities in America are entitled to it.

So you have the 1960s student protesters, the Baby Boomers the hippies, the real Liberals from this era who wanted the ability to be left alone, live their own lives and live in freedom, before the New-Left emerges in the late 1960s, that wanted to tear down the American establishment and our form of government and move to a socialist system. The 1960s hippies marching for individual freedom for all Americans and not have to fight wars they think are immoral. And you have the sons and daughters, perhaps even grandsons and granddaughters of the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s, protesting today against free speech. And create a new right for minorities that doesn’t exist for anyone else.

The hippies, were successful, because America was politically changing in the 1960s and becoming that country that we really are today. Of people who believe in the right to be left alone and be free to live our own lives and even freely express ourselves. While the New-Left, represented a fringe in the 1960s that believed capitalism was immoral and even racist, that our form of government was even undemocratic and completely wanted to change the American way of life and impose their socialist and even Marxist values on the rest of the country. And today you have the New-Left still representing a fringe that sees free speech as dangerous and that minorities deserve the right not to be offended. The 1960s protesters were successful, because in many cases they had the country with them. The New-Left protesters today don’t have that.

Read Full Post »

Woody Allen

Source: The Gypsy: Woody Allen Rare Standup From 1965

If I was robbed four times in a month as Woody Allen claimed, not that I was robbed, but that he was, hum? Gee I don’t know, how about moving! Just throwing a thought out there. Actually, after the second time I was robbed, I think I would have moved. Especially if I was in his situation, or was doing better. Nuevo York, a muy loco ciudad! New York, a very crazy city, for any English speakers who happen to see this. They go from way too much crime and a city of eight-million people in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, that can’t defend itself, even though it’s the economic center of the world, (where all those high tax dollars go) to a city in the 1990s where you could be arrested for even viewing porn. Perhaps even jaywalking, hailing for a cab with your middle finger.

If a city is too dangerous to go outside, it’s too dangerous to live there. I know, another strike of commonsense there. I guess people could work from home and order all of their food in. Have the dentist and barber come over, etc. But if that is what people are doing, then the people making all the deliveries are risking their lives by going outside everyday and going to other people’s homes in New York. And don’t forget, even if they get out of their homes and business’s safely, they might risk being kidnapped, or robbed at the place where they’re making their delivery. I’ve never understood how big wealthy cities haven’t been able to defend themselves. And gee I don’t know, invest a good deal of their resources into their law enforcement so the city can defend itself. But I guess that just comes from not being a New Yorker.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »