Noir Dame Blog

Retro-inspired culture and media – audio drama, classic TV and film

We’re happy to report that Denver’s Saturday Night Swing Dance is now a weekly event, offering a great chance for beginners and experienced dancers alike to get together in a warm, friendly atmosphere. It’s held at the First Avenue Presbyterian Church on 120 W. First Avenue, Denver, See-Oh.

The musical focus is split between two styles. Even Saturdays (2nd and 4th) are flagship Rockin’ Swing Nights with an East Coast-friendly format, featuring a playlist full of high-energy Swing, Jump Blues, and Early Rock n’ Roll. Odd Saturdays (1st, 3rd, and the occasional 5th) will be Lindy Hop Nights hosted by DJ Wes Hofmann. These nights emphasize a smoother but still energetic Lindy Hop-friendly format, featuring swingin’ Jazz, Blues, Big Band, and Late Night sounds.

Starting in October, the Saturday Night Swing Dance’s house band David Gasten and the City Kids will play once a month on one of the Rockin’ Swing nights. The nights David Gasten and the City Kids play will be $7, and DJ’ed nights will be $5.

Ticket-holders also get a coupon for FREE ADMISSION to the legendary Skylark Lounge, where an after-hours party continues with more live dance music and dancing. The Skylark Lounge is Denver’s main hub for all things vintage. Check it out!

Lots of news about Marilyn Monroe this year – and even in the fictional world, we’ll be sure to hear more about her 1962 death, after this past week’s episode of Mad Men, “Maidenform”, in which Marilyn Monroe is described by characters as “half” the ideal American woman, and references are made to her “birthday song” for President Kennedy at Madison Square Garden. (Since the show is now taking place in 1962, it’ll also be interesting to see how the show deals with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how it compares to Thirteen Days, which along with Good Night and Good Luck, hit a recent high mark for historical film.)

Earlier this year, not long after some rather dopey pictures of Lindsay Lohan dressing up as la Marilyn (New York magazine seriously called these snaps “historic”? are you kidding me?), there was a hullabaloo about an apparent 15 second “blue” home movie that Marilyn was said to have starred in, along with an unknown male partner. If you weren’t aware of the story, and are curious, it’s rather sordid and sad (wait: when is our interest in this kind of stuff not sordid and sad?) and involves J. Edgar Hoover attempting to blackmail JFK. Hum. I’d rather rewatch Thirteen Days, wouldn’t you?

Now there’s more talk about brand new Marilyn material – an amateur film shot by a Naval officer during Some Like it Hot appears on the auction block, and Vanity Fair has put her back on the cover, claiming they have lots of “secret archives”, which includes lots of pictures of things she or Joe DiMaggio owned (like a Japan Air Lines bag? Yeah, it says so much about their divorce, suuuure, he gave her the bag to say sayonara, right?). (What it really implies is “pack rat”, or “I’m a celebrity and people give me crap.”)

Their exclusive photos don’t seem loving, or reverent, or organized to tell a story. The only story it implies is of a stalker with deep pockets and no respect for the person he claims to love. Vanity Fair’s coverage helped me understand one thing, though – why Jane Austen had her sister burn all her letters. Yep.

There’s also been a recent court judgment over rights to her image – pitting the heirs of Sam Shaw (who took her inimitable, though gals try, white-dress-over-subway-grate picture in The Seven Year Itch) against CMG Worldwide and Marilyn Monroe LLC. So far, Shaw’s heirs are winning.

Kinda sad, though, that so much of this interest is about her image and less and less about her intangible qualities. She was an original, like Jean Harlow and Clara Bow before her – and looked just as silly aping their image during a Richard Avedon photo shoot as starlets (even talented ones like Lohan) appear when doing the Norma Jean act.

To really enjoy and appreciate Marilyn’s presence, you need to sit down and watch one of her films. Are we all so postmodern and jaded that we prefer rifling through a dead woman’s filing cabinet, to enjoying the lively work she poured her heart into? Even a bitty bitty part in All About Eve tells you more than you can ever see in some grainy amateur film.

A picture of her ex-husband’s Japan Air Lines bag is not going to tell you much about her talent or her inner soul, no matter what Vanity Fair tries to tell ya.

Dietrich’s in the ether lately…

If you’ve been following Bravo’s reality show Project Runway, its episode last night was unintentionally funny – with competing designers honored by the presence of wrap-dress legend Diane von Furstenberg. Von Furstenberg offered designers a unique challenge: add an item for her new collection, inspired by Marlene Dietrich’s classic film A Foreign Affair. Sadly, the designers – including retro gal Kenley Collins – either had never heard of the movie or were misled about its plot (one describing the story as mostly being about her spy adventures!). Multiple designers went for a retro, Chinese-inspired style, apparently unaware that “Shanghai Lily” was Dietrich’s prostitute character in Shanghai Express – about twenty years before Billy Wilder would direct her and Jean Arthur in the postwar ruins of Affair. In one of her signature roles, Dietrich plays the jaded ex-mistress of a Nazi. (Shades of infamous designer Coco Chanel’s real life story.)

No one, however, attempted a dress that spoke to the make-what-you-can-of-it mood of postwar Europe, before Christian Dior’s New Look told fashionistas they could wear lots of fabric again. The winner, however, made a lush 30s-inspired dress that croons Lili Marlene – and is now for sale by American Express, with some of the proceeds going to charity.

Meanwhile, Berlin’s famous Friedrichstadtpalast (literally, Friedrich or Friedrich’s State Palace), is threatened with bankruptcy. As part of a chorus oft-compared to the Folies Bergère of Paris (ze “can-can girls”), Dietrich first stretched her gorgeous legs on its stage. In the 1920s, theatre impresario Max Reinhardt had given the Friedrichstadtpalast new life after a series of poor judgments by previous owners, though he’s better known in the US for his large-scale presentations at the Hollywood Bowl, such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream, (its whimsy and romantic fantasy managed to last into a film adaptation – despite the incongruity of Jimmy Cagney as one of its stars!). The Friedrichstadtpalast’s tawdry, sexy shows reached a Golden Age during the height of the Weimar Republic (well, we’ve all seen Cabaret, haven’t we?). Today, it’s looking for an angel investor to rescue its history.

Nivair H. Gabriel of sci-fi blog io9.com argues brilliantly that there was no reason for The Day The Earth Stood Still to have been remade. As a commenter says, the only good thing about such an excellent movie being remade, is the number of us who will, in protest, spend our money on the original DVD.

Judging by the trailers I’ve seen, the restrained creepiness of the original movie has been turned into a thudding, bombastic thriller with ecological overtones. It is possible, but unlikely, that this source material has been refashioned with a new direction that couldn’t be used in 1951. But I find that unlikely — since the original is really about humanity’s inability to “get along”, something we’re still coping with half a century later.

Gabriel points out that there are lots of new ideas that are ignored, while Hollywood produces remakes. There’s room to tell stories that couldn’t be told in 1951; for example, AMC’s great series Mad Men, set in 1960 (and starring Jon Hamm, who appears in the Stood Still remake). Mad Men explores the flip side of success in the advertising business, as well as 1950s era mores. In 1960, the only advertising agency stories you were likely to see were frothy comedies with Doris Day and Rock Hudson, full of innuendo. I happen to enjoy those comedies, and they were “remade” brilliantly in the recent pastiche Down With Love, which was fun and subversive. Mad Men, though, is telling a completely different story with completely new characters – something audiences can never get enough of, as long as it’s well-made. Hancock is a great example of a new, fresh concept in telling the superhero story – no mutant DNA required.

The Women is also coming out as a remake, and at first glance it’s also a classic movie that doesn’t need redoing… right? Except, even if the remake focuses only on upper class ladies, as the original did, women’s role in society has changed – a lot. In the original, only one woman – an unmarried, middle aged writer – had a career outside the home. This isn’t the case in the remake, and it could change the dynamic of the narrative.

Since The Women is the story of a wronged wife, fidelity in marriage is one of its most important questions. Our understanding of infidelity has changed a bit, too. (Well, unless you were a politician or millionaire. The story of “Peaches” Browning and Daddy was daily fodder for the papers in the 1920s, and even before that, President Grover Cleveland had a love child issue.)

The gist is, there might be something intriguing to say by updating Claire Booth Luce’s bitchy play to the modern day.

Now, it would be interesting, if this new remake of Stood Still decided to return to the original source, Harry Bates’ “Farewell to the Master,” which has darker implications, or if it utilized Ray Bradbury’s sequel script.

But as far as Hollywood’s recent track record, it’s unlikely that the new The Day The Earth Stood Still offers anything really special and new, except more dramatic CGI effects. For those of us who loved the understated threat of the original, it’s reason alone to give this film a miss.

The New Yorker has been courting a little controversy lately – especially with the recent caricature of presidential candidate Barack Obama (and wife Michelle Obama) appearing on its cover. Interestingly, another controversy is brewing — over Charles Van Doren’s recent article.

Van Doren, as you may remember, or have seen from one of our DVDs, was the urbane professor involved in the 1959 “Twenty-One” scandal, in which the winners of the ’50s game show were carefully coached on their answers and behavior. For years, Van Doren has said little about his involvement. In the 1990s, he turned down an opportunity to speak to WGBH, then making a PBS documentary, and also nixed working with Robert Redford in the making of Quiz Show. Herb Stempel, his opponent on the show, worked with Redford, wanting in his own way to set the record straight.

Now, after fifty years, Van Doren has written a long piece about his experience with “Twenty One”, and what happened after. It’s ultimately a beautifully written narrative that explains very little.

Greater sinners have experienced absolution, and sometimes bolder success, after reemerging, and speaking candidly to the public, so it’s interesting that Van Doren doesn’t give much reason for his long silence. After fifty years, you’d think there would be a book, not an article, full of things to say. On his refusal to work with Redford and PBS, he mainly states his wife Gerry’s pressure not to come forward.

The average person wants to know – Why did Van Doren do it? Is he sorry that he did it, beyond the immediate impact on his wallet and his standing in the community? Why did he choose to remain silent for so long? How does he really feel about Stempel and the other people involved? (Beyond a backhand in which he refers to rumors about Stempel having psychiatric trouble.) There are no answers here.

It’s telling that Van Doren chose The New Yorker, to write this non-apology.
Stanley Fish penned an intriguing piece for the New York Times, pointing out that Van Doren’s family, and the circles they ran in, in the 1950s, considered TV to be vulgar, and that they considered New York to be the center of the intellectual universe. He points out that “…[T]he same crowd (or their children and grandchildren) still read The New Yorker, which means that Van Doren has found a way of going public and speaking only in-house.”

Van Doren has no interest in speaking to the same general audience for whom he performed on “Twenty-One”, people who were inspired and entertained by his work on the show. He didn’t write this piece for the average American, who was disappointed to learn that the man she had cheered for was a fraud.

The word “apology” never appears in the article. The only time the word “sorry” appears in this piece, he’s describing events in the past. He apologizes to his father about the unhappy course of his celebrity, and again apologizes when he tells Dave Garroway (formerly of The Today Show) that he has to leave a meeting to deal with the growing scandal.

Yet after fifty years, a period in which most people take wistful stock of their past deeds, Van Doren never apologizes to, or addresses, that broad American audience in his article. This is the same audience who helped him make a tidy sum of money in 1957, 1958 and 1959 – the people, ultimately, who he was most responsible to. This is why he began to be perceived, after the scandal, as an entitled “elitist WASP”. They may not have Van Doren’s talent or education, but you’ll see more contrition from a crass, two-hit wonder appearing on Behind the Music, or a cranky-yet-talented spazz on a Bravo reality show.

Van Doren is intelligent and an excellent writer. His mistake was made by many others involved in the game shows of early television – an unethical mistake that shocked millions, but also “humanized” Van Doren’s image as a Golden Boy.

It could be reticence to talk about his innermost feelings (which seems almost quaint in today’s media), but it’s hard not to wonder if he just feels he’s above explaining himself to the average person.