This arrived today. Disc one is currently playing.
I’m planning to watch as much of the Julian Bream BBC TV Master Class stuff as I can find. And it was watching a bit of one of them that prompted me to buy this 3-CD set, of his early recorded works.
I’m hyper-exhausted today. Which is quite common for me these days. It’s never pleasant. But at least I can lie back, relax, and enjoy this sublime music. Indeed, the beauty of it is a balm.
I love this photo!
The CD player appears to be stuck in a looping mode. When CDs end, they simply start playing again. Actually I don’t mind this at all. As the music on our CD player is always the best, auto-repeat is something of a boon!
One thing struck me, very forcibly, just now, as disc one of this wonderful set auto-restarted, was Bream’s command of nuanced tone/expression. Which, funnily enough, was something he was talking about, and demonstrating – alongside a very gifted student – on the Master Class episode I recently watched on the BBC iPlayer.
This consists of such things as touch – the soft parts of fingers, or the nails, for example (affecting volume/tone) – the position of the left hand – over the sound-hole, or closer to the bridge (again, affecting both tone and volume, albeit in subtly differing ways), and then how the left hand holds the notes, which – combined with the right – gives control over attack/release.
False harmonics, tapping or thumping (or whatever) the body of the guitar. There are so many things one can do. These latter are things more modern guitarists have taken to creative extremes in recent years. But Bream demonstrates in his playing a much older deeper tradition, of expressivity, that’s always been inherent in all great music.
Love this cover!
Five records are combined over three CDs: four for the Westminster label, and one on RCA. Disc one, still playing as I type this, is all Spanish composers, and draws on his records Spanish Guitar Vol. 1 and Spanish Guitar Vol. 2. As the album titles convey, this is all guitar.
Disc two finishes off the Spanish material, starting with the last three tracks off Spanish Guitar Vol. 2. It then moves on to Bream playing Bach and Dowland. CD three is roughly half the rest of the Dowland material, and finally The Art of Julian Bream, which has a more smorgasbord type selection of material.
I haven’t heard discs two or three yet. But, if they’re on a par with disc one, as I fully expect they will be, we’re in for a treat. I paid just under £18 for this three disc/five album collection. I generally try and spend less, in these straitened times. But this was easily well worth it.
I was going to give this film four, or maybe four and a half stars. But when it finished, I knew that I loved it. And very little in life – this film included – is perfect. So it’s the full five. I really love this film.
And one of the main reasons – actually in reality several strands, but let’s keep things simple – is also the reason a lot of folk (e.g. this movie has, at the time of posting this, a score of just 14% on rotten tomatoes!) don’t like it.
And that’s the fact it’s not a typical gunslingin’ type Western. Set in Kentucky, it could be said, rather, to be an Eastern!
Thomas Hart Benton’s The Kentuckian.
I love this movie. Sure it’s a bit hokey. But it’s very unlike most Westerns. In fact it’s not really a Western, at all. Or certainly not in the usual sense. And the folk who judge it as such are way off the mark.
It’s actually a story about human relationships. And a father and son relationship is at the heart of it all. The fact that it’s about a father and son trying to seek their fortune in Texas, and that it’s set in frontier era America.
Burt not only stars in this film. He also directed it. And I think he did a terrific job. But then I’m really quite sentimental. I know that it’s a very cornball take on a certain view of a certain time in American history. But it has a great deal of intrinsic value. And I pity those that can’t see that. They’re really missing out.
This film has heart. Soul, even. It’s about humanity. At its best and at its worst. It’s about visions of what humanity is, and what it might be. What humans do to each other, to control each other, conform, and suchlike. These are good themes.
And these are themes that are disappearing from mainstream film, and entertainment more broadly, as it becomes ever more shallow, and – of the irony – conformist.
Frome Bros (Douglas Spencer & Paul Wexler).
There are elements of the trad Western in the mix. The McGuffin driving the plot is a blood feud between the Wakefield’s, and the Fromes. Big and little Eli (and their pooch) are being pursued by the relentless cold hearted Frome brothers.
The charm of the film works on numerous levels: it’s beautifully filmed, with beautiful actors; the music (Bernard Hermann, no less!) is great. The script, if a little hokey – the dialect is a bit like a Yankee equivalent of Dicjens rendering the British working classes – is very good.
One of the strongest cards the film plays is a kind of mytho-poetic meeting of and conflict between salt of the earth goodness, and various forms of so-called civilised compromise or corruption. Even the name of the town, Humility, where they wind up stopped on their odyssey to Texas, is redolent with this parable like quality.
Hannah (Diane Foster), Little and Big Eli.
Lancaster’s physical charisma, or more bluntly, his masculine beauty, is powerfully on display here. And Donald MacDonald, as Little Eli, is perfectly cast, as the literal ‘mini-me’ child. Father and son not only look (and dress) alike, but allow the story to compare and contrast how man and boy react to their experiences.
The story is based on the book, The Gabriel Horn. And this rather Freudian symbol of manhood figures large in the movie. Once again operating more on the level of folk tale or parable than documentary history.
Another charming aspect of this film is how it embodies a loving homage to a bygone era, of both optimistic colonialism, and the minutiae of American life at that time. so called revisionist Westerns would come along later, to look at the darker sides of these times. But this is – despite several grittier threads (the blood feud; innocence vs corruption, etc.) – for the most part, a celebration of a semi-mythical past.
Having said all of this, this tale of an epic colonial trek is, for brief moments, shockingly violent. But it’s done in a very tame or sanitised way, by the standards of our own times. And in this particular respect, whilst the film as a whole is more myth or parable, it’s actually a helluva lot more realistic than most macho fantasy gunslingin’ Westerns.
Having just used the term macho, it behooves me to address the feminine aspect of the film, as beautifully embodied in the forms of Hannah Bolden (indentured, or white slave girl), on the wilder side, and Susie Spann (school mistress/teacher, in Humility, played by Diana Lynn), as the more tamed or civilised femme.
As a dewy-eyed romantic, I love how this aspect of the film is handled. But ladies might find it less attractive nowadays? I don’t know… There’s a degree of male fantasy at okay: Big (and noble/beautiful) Eli gets his pick of the squaws here!
Having just referred to the indigenous folk of the US, it’s worth noting they are – from what I recall (writing this the day after viewing) – entirely absent from this very romantic rendering of 19th C. America. And ‘the negro’ is only represented by a troop of singing and dancing performers, on the riverboat. This latter vessel is almost a character deserving its own credit in the film.
One of only two movies Lancaster directed (what’s the other?), I love it. And it makes one wonder what else he might’ve done. Given the opportunity.
PS – There’s a few good articles about the film/DVD online, such as here, or here.
I don’t really know why – even though it’s explained in the liner notes – the more recent official release of Turiya Sings stripped away the strings.
I hear what Ravi (?) Coltrane is saying, when he says [find quote] … But surely they could have, and indeed should have, put out a set including both versions. It’s quite astonishing that even her own progeny feel the need to ‘curate’ (or tamper with?) Alice’s work.
The negative reaction to what Alice did with some of her husband’s music, most specifically on the brilliant – but much maligned (at the time) – Infinity, is the clearest antecedent.
I believe there is a CD version of the full Alice mix, on the Italian B. Free label (I’m trying to get a copy). But in the meantime, at least this is online, so we can hear what Alice intended.
If you’re a fan of your more normal or ‘trad’ Holmes and Watson, as we are, this might take some getting used to, because it certainly ain’t that.
Paying Mycroft a visit.
For starters, it’s partly played as a comedy. And it is funny, in places. But it is also a Sherlock Holmes mystery, albeit not an Arthur Conan Doyle one.
But it’s also a tragedy. I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen it. I started out thinking I wasn’t too keen. But by the end, I loved it.
Mycroft and Gabrielle Valladon/Ilse von Hoffmanstal.
It’s a thing quite apart from Holmes as he’s usually portrayed. Playing somewhat on the distinction – already mentioned by Holmes/Conan Doyle in the original canon – between the ‘real’ Holmes, and the Holmes portrayed to the World via Dr Watson.
There are various strange strands, and muddling McGuffins, from the Russian Royal Ballet, to disappearing midget acrobats. And all are woven together into what ultimately proves to be quite a lush and lovingly produced homage to the world’s foremost ‘consulting detective’.
Robert Stephen’s Holmes is actually terrific.
I know Robert Stephen’s primarily as Aragorn, in the BBC radio adaptation of TLOTR. And secondarily as a character in Ridley Scott’s sublime Napoleonic debut movie, The Duellists.
If you love Jeremy Brett, or even Basil Rathbone, such one off Holmes turns can be difficult to digest. But Stephens totally won me round. And (?) Watson is perfect as his sidekick and companion, deftly mixing the earnest with the comic.
Lee as Mycroft.
Some pretty big names add their heft to proceedings, in both major and minor roles: Christopher Lee as Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, and Irene Handl as mrs Hudson both figure quite large, whilst Stanley Holloway (first gravedigger) and Frank Thornton (hotel receptionist) have smaller parts.
A nice B&W publicity shot.
An unusual entry in the Holmes oeuvre, but worth checking out.
Okay, it’s a bit gonzo. But it’s great entertainment. Stallone is perfect as the taciturn Nam vet, John Rambo, who freaks out and goes native, when uptight local Sherriff, Will Teasle tries to boot him out of town.
Hope!? Ha!Dennehey’s Teasle is a real Jerkwater jerk.
Based on the 1972 novel, First Blood, by Canadian author David Morrell, you could actually make a case, as nutso Hollywood as the movie is, that the story is a little bit prophetic, in terms of the idea of America’s exported wars coming home to roost.
I decided to write a novel about a returning Vietnam veteran who brings the war to the United States…
On screen…
Setting aside the basic idea of the story, based on the idea of spurned ‘war hero’ veterans, unable to assimilate, it’s just a damn well put together piece of movie making.
Terrific actors giving really solid performances, in great locations. Well shot and directed. Nicely paced, and with loads of terrific scenarios: from chases, to hunting in the woods, or ravines; mining tunnel exploration; even a siege of the local police station!
Behind the camera.
Once again, author and Rambo creator Morrell puts it well:
… I love the movie. Ted Kotcheff’s direction, Jerry Goldsmith’s music, Andrew Laszlo’s photography, Sylvester Stallone’s acting, Richard Crenna, on and on. It’s a terrific movie that seems more realistic with each year because its action scenes don’t use computer effects. The realism of the stunts is amazing.
In Morell’s book, Col. Trautman kills Rambo. In the movie, he doesn’t. Allowing the sequels/franchise. Watching this makes me want to re-watch the sequels. And plenty of other Sly stuff, like Rocky, and that early movie with the Tom Waits tunes… what’s it called?
I saw several churches I’d liked to have stopped and looked at today (must check out the church at Diddington!). However, I was only able to stop and view this one, St Leonard’s, Southoe.
Looks quite interesting.
From the outside it looked quite promising. With numerous parts looking of very different vintages. The arch and pillars around the front door are terrific. They look really old. So it starts well.
But, truth be told, there wasn’t much of interest, to my eyes, inside. Still, I took a load of photos. One thing the photos don’t capture, sadly, is the very yellow light inside, thanks to the glass in the windows.
Once back outside, I spotted some nice demonic faces. And the building has a quite handsome exterior. These old churches, they’re nearly always worth a look.
Weathered gravestone.
There are also some nice houses in Southoe, such as Corner House, opposite the church.
I was perusing Teresa’s fab little book (poss 10,000 Years of Art?) and came across the image above. I liked it so much I snapped it, with my iPhone (see above pic).
I then decided to find out more about it. I’d thought it was just a painting. Flat. On canvas, most likely. But I discovered it was in fact a mural, or wall painting. And that it covers all but the floors of a room in a palace!
And a bit of searching lead to the discovery of the above pictured book. Which I promptly ordered. RRP is an eye watering £60! I managed to get a brand new copy for a little over half that amount.
My copy, arrived today.
My copy arrived today. It’s still shrink-wrapped, in the photo above. And… my God! It’s absolutely stunning. It’s a whole pleasure palace, adorned with the most opulent of interior decorations. Truly mindblowing.
