[continued from previous message]   
      
   historical epic as any film has since LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.   
   The film is a biography of an historical figure no less   
   controversial than T. E. Lawrence, American Communist John Reed,   
   author of TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD.  The story traces the   
   life of Reed (Warren Beatty) and his wife, Louise Bryant (Diane   
   Keaton), from Reed's journalistic origins in Portland, Oregon, to   
   New York's Greenwich Village, where a clutch of intellectuals are   
   building the foundations of what was to become two Communist   
   parties (the American Communist Party and the American Communist   
   Labor Party).  Incidentally here also is formed a love triangle   
   among Reed, Bryant, and Eugene O'Neill (played very ably by Jack   
   Nicholson).   
      
   Then the film really starts moving.  We are carried away with the   
   Reeds to France for World War I, to Russia to see the laying of   
   the foundations of the Bolshevik Revolution, back to the United   
   States where Reed is swept into the turmoil of the Communist   
   movement in America, and again to Russia to see the less than   
   happy results of the Revolution.  All this and much more happens   
   to Reed in the short span of years from 1915 to 1920.   
      
   Such a film could easily have become a propaganda tract for any of   
   many different groups: the New York liberal community, the   
   American government, the American Communist Party, the Soviet   
   Communist Party, and several others.  Instead, a rounded view of   
   each is presented; each of the major forces takes licks and kudos,   
   though usually more of the former.  In the end none gets a clean   
   bill of health and the only positive stand the film seems to take   
   is for the idealism of youth.  The idealism of the Reeds seems   
   noble even if it is a tragic flaw that alienates them from their   
   own country and leaves them easy prey to be exploited by the   
   Soviets.   
      
   The casting of the film is odd, to say the least.  Beatty, Keaton,   
   and Nicholson are certainly not the sort of dramatic actors one   
   would expect to find in an historic epic film.  In addition, the   
   film is laced with several other unexpected but familiar faces   
   even, in small parts.  Along with Paul Sorvino, Maureen Stapleton,   
   and Jerzy Kosinski, small roles include Ian Wolfe, Bessie Love,   
   George Plimpton, Dolph Sweet, and Gene Hackman.  In addition, the   
   film is interspersed with the testimony of what it calls   
   "witnesses," people who lived through the period (and most of whom   
   knew the Reeds).  Included in the witnesses are such diverse   
   personalities as Will Durant, George Jessel, and Henry Miller.   
   Their appearance in the film, a set of inserts, adds an air of   
   documentary authenticity to the proceedings that Beatty uses to   
   good advantage.   
      
   Paramount Pictures has been very low-key over the last few years;   
   their output was mostly very minor films.  Now, in the past   
   eighteen months, the mountain logo has graced boxoffice successes   
   like AIRPLANE and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, and artistic successes   
   like ORDINARY PEOPLE, ELEPHANT MAN, DRAGONSLAYER, and now REDS.  A   
   record like that would be impressive for any studio in the world.   
   After years of being one of the lesser "major studios," it looks   
   like Paramount is bidding for the Number One spot. [-mrl]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: Peter Cushing (letter of comment by Paul Dormer)   
      
   In response to Evelyn's comments on Peter Cushing in the 10/24/25   
   issue of the MT VOID, Paul Dormer writes:   
      
   I was amused to see when the Laurel and Hardy comedy A CHUMP AT   
   OXFORD appeared on TV many years ago that one of the students is   
   played by Cushing, in what the IMDb gives as his second film role.   
   [-pd]   
      
   Evelyn responds:   
      
   I see the IMDb lists THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK (1939) as his first   
   film. That must be a recent discovery, since for years I had heard   
   that A CHUMP AT OXFORD was his first film.   
      
   And the first film that had both Cushing and Christopher Lee was   
   not THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. They were "together" in three films   
   before that: HAMLET (1948), MOULIN ROUGE (1952), and ALEXANDER THE   
   GREAT (1956). I say "together", but they had no scenes together in   
   any of them (in ALEXANDER THE GREAT Lee only provided dubbing for   
   Helmut Dantine's character).   
      
   One reason, by the way, that one variously sees 22 and 24 as the   
   number of films they were in together is probably because some do   
   not count ALEXANDER THE GREAT or THE DEVIL'S AGENT (1962) where   
   Cushing's scenes were shot, but ended up on the cutting room   
   floor. [-ecl]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: THE STONE TAPE and New Podcast (letters of comment by Peter   
   Trei and Bernard Peek)   
      
   In response to Evelyn's comments on THE STONE TAPE in the 10/24/25   
   issue of the MT VOID, Peter Trei writes:   
      
   I saw this when it was first broadcast (I was living in England   
   then). I was fifteen, and found it genuinely scary. [-pt]   
      
   Bernard Peek adds:   
      
   I still find it really scary. [-bp]   
      
   In response to the announcement of a new podcast in the same   
   issue, Peter writes:   
      
   That's 'Bielak'. I've known him for years, and he's the guy who   
   got me started as a professional programmer, hiring a   
   biochemistry major without a CS degree.   
      
   I'll have to check that out. [-pt]   
      
   Evelyn responds:   
      
   Sorry, Richie; obviously I need to proofread better.  [-ecl]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: ANDOR and Other "Star Wars" Media (letters of comment by   
   Peter Trei and Steve Coltrin)   
      
   In response to Evelyn's comments on her "to-watch" list in the   
   10/24/25 issue of the MT VOID, Peter Trei writes:   
      
   Let me add to your burden. Watch ANDOR (on Disney TV). Yes, it's   
   'Star Wars', but its the best written SW show ever made.   
      
   You can think of it as eight movies if it makes you feel better,   
   with 24 episodes set up as three episode arcs.   
      
   So much thought and care went into this (as well as a very high   
   budget), that it is equal, and perhaps better, than the original   
   trilogy.   
      
   If you're doubtful, check the reviews on YT. [-pt]   
      
   Evelyn replies:   
      
   I don't have Disney TV, and I have no plans to get Disney TV. I   
   also don't have Amazon Prime, or AppleTV, or Hulu, and no plans   
   to get those either. I do have Netflix and Turner Classic Movies,   
   and also the free Hoopla and Kanopy (not to mention an extensive   
   DVD and VHS collection, as well as the occasional DVD from the   
   library), and those are more than sufficient to keep me supplied.   
   [-ecl]   
      
   Steve Coltrin adds:   
      
   I wholeheartedly agree with every word of this, and strongly   
   suggest following ANDOR immediately with ROGUE ONE, which   
   continues the story almost seamlessly.   
      
   (There's an episode of REBELS that continues a different thread of   
   the last arc of ANDOR, but that's a whole different rabbit hole to   
   jump down.  The first few episodes of REBELS seems aimed at   
   children, but it grows up the hard way alongside one of the   
   characters ... and it leads into AHSOKA the way ANDOR leads into   
   ROGUE ONE.   
      
   (And AHSOKA builds on CLONE WARS, which, believe it or not,   
   justifies the existence of Episodes II and III.  (Nothing can   
   justify the existence of Episode I.  It's worse than the Holiday   
   Special.)) [-sc]   
      
   ===================================================================   
      
   TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)   
      
   Looking through a list of Philip K. Dick movies, I decided that a   
   lot of them were worth re-watching. One of the lesser-known ones   
   was NEXT (2007), based on Dick's short story "The Golden Man". The   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)