Category Archives: Film

Obit: Doris Day (1922-2019)

Every year is regarded by pop culture fans as a “celebrity deathyard” year. 2019 is no different with the passings of directors Stanley Donen, Larry Cohen, and John Singleton, Ingmar Bergman muse Bibi Andersson, Creature of the Black Lagoon actress Julie Adams, legendary British thespian Albert Finney, veteran character actors Morgan Woodward and Richard Erdman, and Richard Bucket AKA Clive Swift, to name a few. Doris Day, who died May 13th at the ripe old age of 97, is the newest saint to march on.

In one section of her fascinating book on the Hollywood Studio System, The Star Machine, Janine Basinger writes about two blonde singer-actresses on whom the studio took big gambles: Rosemary Clooney and Doris Day. On paper, both should have risen to meteoric movie stardom. But Clooney’s frigid, stiff screen presence didn’t endear her to a mass audience.

Day, on the other hand, possessed the It factor right away in her debut film, Romance on the High Seas, where she portrayed a plebeian band singer hired to masquerade as a socialite on a cruise. Despite her total inexperience and deep insecurity as an actor, veteran filmmaker Michael Curtiz intentionally provided minimal direction, wisely sensing that her natural vivacity and charisma was perfect for the role. He was right, and even today it remains one of her most endearing performances and established her as one of the top box office stars for the rest of her career. Her earnest and charming rendition of the sweet ballad “It’s Magic” (vastly superior to the hokey “Que Sera Sera”) kickstarted her solo recording career.

Although the majority of her films throughout 1957 were musical-comedies, she was occasionally cast against type. The most striking example in her early career was Storm Warning, a gritty crime expose reminiscent of the gangster movies Warner Bros. made in the 30s about a small town ruled by the KKK (interestingly, the movie never delves in white supremacy, instead focusing on corruption). Day is poignantly naturalistic as a battered wife of a Klansman, who…SPOILER, is murdered at the end!

Perhaps the best performance in her early career is in the underrated musical biopic I’ll See You in My Dreams. Day finds the right balance between presenting Grace Kahn, wife of songwriter Gus Kahn, as a well-meaning woman who believes in her husband’s talent with all her soul which leads her to become an overbearing manager.

In spite of her varied career, Day is cemented in the minds of many as a sunny, plucky wholesome girl next door. This perception also led cultural critics to single her out as the face of sterile midcentury repression amongst a turbulent, transformative sociopolitical era. The backlash at the time is understandable considering that the nonconfrontational air of her films is starkly different from theatrically adapted melodramas starring method actors. In the 1960s, the disparity between movies made by the old-guard studio moguls and rebellious, transgressive films from a newer crop of artists in the US and worldwide reached its zenith, in the process rendering Day and her work as “square.” Day rejected the role of Mrs. Robinson in The Graduate, which became 1967s top grosser and helped make “New Hollywood Cinema” popular and lucrative.

Looking at her films fifty years later, most are undoubtedly old-fashioned, but with the exception of a few cringeworthy cornball duds such as Lucky Me or the tepid musical drama Young at Heart, they remain infectiously entertaining in large part due to Day’s unpretentious optimistic can-do charm.

The first film to give Day critical acclaim was Love Me or Leave Me, a dramatic musical biopic based on the life of 20s singer Ruth Etting and her stormy marriage to gangster Marty Snyder who bankrolled her career. She is effective at frankly conveying Etting as a highly ambitious woman willing to do anything to get to the top (Etting reportedly found Day’s performance too hard bitten). Day falters somewhat in the third act when required to be histrionic and gets outacted by James Cagney, an experienced hand at scenery chewing rage.

She’s even better in Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much, where the master of suspense drew a beautifully realized performance as a mother whose family is unwittingly foiled in an assassination plot while on holiday in Morocco. (Other distressed women films, Julie and Midnight Lace, veer towards camp).

She survived the decline of movie musicals in the late 50s with a series of romantic comedies, the first being Teacher’s Pet a gentle comedy, where Day is charming as the idealistic journalist who mellows cynical reporter Clark Gable. The following films have a more manic bent, including a trio of battle-of-the-sexes comedies in which she is cheekily deceived by Rock Hudson. She received her sole Oscar nomination for Pillow Talk, probably in large part due to her hilarious sobbing montage.

While lacking the sophistication of the aforementioned films, other vehicles such as Move Over Darling and The Glass Bottom Boat are fun in a very 60s madcap way. In the former Day attacks the role of a wife who returns from a shipwreck the same day her husband remarries with zany gusto and is aided by equally vivacious co-stars. In the latter, Day is a good sport as she is continually harassed by several oddballs who think she is a Russian spy in Frank Tashlin’s cartoony camp fest.

Part of Day’s enduring legacy was her constant resolution in the face of adversity. A major blow came early in her life when a car accident prevented her from pursuing her dance career. She instead learned singing and became a popular vocalist with several Big Bands throughout the 1940s. Her third husband, Marty Melcher gambled all her money and committed her to a sitcom without her consent. Nevertheless, she dutifully did the soul-crushingly awful show for five years and recouped enough money to retire and live on her own terms for the rest of her life, converting her estate to an animal shelter.

Review: Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)

A Night at the Cinema- A Bohemian Rhapsody review

By Heather Nichols, Tawfik Zone Contributor

So right off the bat I just gotta say, this whole movie is very reminiscent of that VH1 Behind the Music series they used to do, but on a larger budget. Also this review is coming a bit later because I had to see it twice to really break it down. By the way if you haven’t seen it yet and you’re a fan of Queen, just go see it because there’s no real point in putting up a spoiler warning. I’m going to talk about the whole film.

There are a couple of things I have to get right out of the way: how the film handled its PG-13 rating and its portrayal of Freddie Mercury’s sexuality. I am one of the few in camp that think you can make an adult movie with a PG-13, and after seeing the end result I stand by this statement. I also would like to applaud the MPAA for not slapping films with an automatic R just for showing a same sex couple share a kiss; they’ve finally arrived to 2018. While the film doesn’t cover up that Freddie Mercury certainly didn’t live a PG-13 life, it doesn’t feel the need to show all the sex or the drugs. 

As for Freddie’s sexuality, if there’s one scene that really captures the film’s stance it’s where the band is being interviewed and Freddie is clearly on drugs and all the reporters want to know about is his sexuality when in reality the focus should have been on his struggle with the celebrity lifestyle. Some other reviewers have deemed the film “a conservative’s campaign ad against the homosexual agenda.” Politics aside I honestly have no idea what film they were watching. The film doesn’t demonize being gay or even try to point the finger and say he contracted AIDS because he was gay. It takes an almost aseptic approach towards celebrity in general; the constant drugs and the parties and having someone around who isn’t really invested in your well-being is just the perfect destructive combination that has claimed the lives of more than just Mercury.

This is probably a good point to talk about the portrayal of Paul Prenter. For the sake of the film he is the villain and a damn good one.His undermining leads to both the separation of Queen and his drug pushing and enabling guides Freddie Mercury down a destructive path to almost no point of return. In reality Paul Prenter’s relationship with the band played out differently; in the film Mercury fires him for not informing him of Live-Aid,which made for a great cinematic moment. Prenter was believed to have been sexually involved with Freddie Mercury and did threaten him with blackmail as shown in the film but a lot of the rest seems to have been embellished for the sake of the film. Do I think he falls back on an old Hollywood stereotype that depicts Gay men in a bad light? No and I think the film actively tries to avoid that as well. He’s more of a representation of “the wrong crowd” that all kids are told not to hang out with because they’ll get into trouble. In this instance the trouble is cocaine, pill popping with a side of binge drinking.      

So now that we’ve got the hardest parts out of the way let’stalk about the rest of the film. Performance wise I’m very glad that Rami Malek was cast as Freddie versus Sacha Baron Cohen. Not that it wouldn’t have been interesting to see the man who gave us Borat put his spin on Freddie. Evidently Cohen had signed on in 2010 to play the lead role but departed in 2013 due to creative differences with the band as they could not agree on what sort of a film they wanted to make. Cohen wanted to focus on the wilder part of Mercury’s lifestyle and the band really wanted a film about the band and its music. The band also stated in an interview that for the portrayal of Freddie to feel real, the audience had to believe the performer is Freddie and that Cohen’s own sense of theatricality would greatly clash and take away that suspension of disbelief. Malek is really able to sell the character and most critics have agreed no one could have done it better. The fact that the music wasn’t dubbed over and it was actually Queen was something I was unsure of, but really no one can top Mercury’s vocals so another good decision on the part of the filmmakers.

As for the rest of the band, my god if they don’t get hair and makeup awards for transforming those actors into lookalikes of Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon I’m going to throw by popcorn at the TV this awards season. Also fun fact, Joseph Mazzello who played John Deacon, was the little kid in the original Jurassic Park.

We of course have to talk about the portrayal of the two major loves of Mercury’s life, Mary Austin and Jim Hutton. Mercury said in a 1985 interview. “The only friend I’ve got is Mary, and I don’t want anybody else. To me, she was my common-law wife. To me, it was a marriage. We believe in each other, that’s enough for me.” He loved her and she was always his best friend which comes across so strongly in the film. The scene where Freddie says he might be bisexual and she says no Freddie you’re gay, according to interviews is more or less how that conversation went down in real life. The film hooks them up in this sort of a meet cute moment when in reality it was Brian May who introduced them. It also omits the aftermath of their separation where she had asked him to have a child with her and he refused (but said he wouldn’t mind getting another cat). But there’s only so much ground one can cover in a 2 hour and 14 minute run time. Had the film tried to cast all the other women that Mercury had dated there just would have been far too many characters and the focus would have pulled away from the band and just been more focused on his sexuality so again, I think it was a conscious effort to show the film for the artist and the legacy he wanted to be known for.

As for Jim Hutton, the film really doesn’t have a whole lot of him in it but given the private nature of the couple’s relationship it makes some sense. He’s also a nice counter to the portrayal Paul Prenter, as another gay man who isn’t into the drug or party scene and there’s a sense of respect between he and Mercury. Did the scene with Freddie Mercury’s parents meeting him and being all accepting of their relationship happen in real life? I couldn’t say, but I know that their religious background was not accepting of homosexual relationships and that was a big part of why Mercury was closeted for so long, there just isn’t an interview with them to state if this scene has any basis in reality. For the film though it is a nice moment and creates this nice book end because it’s just before Live Aid he makes his father proud because he performs for the benefit of other people.

So all in all it’s a solid film that really shows some of the band’s most important moments. While some liberties are taken, it doesn’t try to really judge Freddie Mercury for the lifestyle he lead or even use him as a cautionary tale. It’s more about the friendship of the band, how they were like a family and how at the end of the day it’s your real friends that you can always count on.

Obits: Dorothy Malone & Bradford Dillman

This New Year the celebrity graveyard has commenced, taking away two classic movie/TV stars, Dorothy Malone, 92 and Bradford Dillman, 87. Although neither one has become an immortal screen icon, both had long and varied careers.

**************************

When Dorothy Malone changed her hair color, her screen roles transformed considerably. As a brunette in Warner Brothers and Universal pictures, Malone played the good girl. In those roles Malone always underplayed to good effect with a sensible, empathetic warmth. In her early career she’s probably best remembered for her brief, but excellent scene in The Big Sleep where she brought sauciness and smarts as a keen book store salesclerk who helped Bogie’s Marlowe uncover a major clue.

Courtesy of wallpaperup.com

Perhaps her best role in this era was in Raoul Walsh’s stellar Western remake of High Sierra, Colorado Territory, about two sympathetic antiheroes against a bunch of fickle “respectable” people. Malone is well cast as the seemingly nice girl who callously betrays outlaw Joel McCrea in a swift second at the first whiff of adversity.

Regarding Malone’s screen roles, blondes didn’t have more fun. But blonde Malone found more acclaim with meatier roles as crazy, mixed-up, slightly mysterious women. Her most famous role is her Oscar-winning turn as an out-of-control alcoholic nymphomaniac socialite who wreaks havoc on Rock Hudson and Lauren Bacall in Douglas Sirk’s opulent melodrama Written on the Wind. The most memorable sequence is when Malone’s character dances maniacally as her father dies of a heart attack.

Courtesy of otrasactrices.wordpress.com

Her film career was somewhat derailed by her first and only starring vehicle, Too Much, Too Soon, a melodrama based off of troubled actress Diana Barrymore, which was savaged by critics and box office returns, and featured a way past his prime Errol Flynn as her leading man.

In the early 60s she delivered poignant performances as enigmatic women whose pasts with dangerous men caught up with her in well-written bittersweet episodes of Route 66 and Checkmate. In 1964, she scored a major coup when she starred in the revolutionary and super popular soap opera Peyton Place. Initially it was an ideal setup as she was the Grande Dame and had clout to set normal working hours to spend time with her children. By the second year, younger actors Mia Farrow, Ryan O’Neal, and Barbara Parkins got more fanfare.

After the show ended in 1968, Malone acted here and there until 1992. Her final role in Basic instinct as a woman who got away with murdering her family was exciting on paper but translated as a random and skimpy cameo on screen.

****************************

Like so many of the male and female starlets groomed by the major studios in the late 50s, Bradford Dillman didn’t achieve major movie stardom like the actors under contract during the Hollywood Golden Era of 1930 to 1950 or the Hollywood New Wave of 1967 to 1975. Other than Compulsion, where he received good notices for playing a rich sociopathic murderer, Dillman’s early filmography at 20th Century Fox was forgettable.

Courtesy of IMDb

Starting in the early 60s, Dillman maintained a prolific career guest starring on TV shows. His first set of guest appearances are his best because the 1960s was a prime time for well-written character-driven TV. He excelled at playing deviants and neurotics. He was uncompromisingly raw as a psycho in an uncharacteristically dark episode of Dr. Kildare who rapes Kildare’s (played by youth idol Richard Chamberlain) girlfriend in front of him and continues to taunt both of them before he is apprehended. He is equally unsettling in a shocking episode of Ben Casey where he is an intelligent, but devious patient who gaslights his dumb, but sweet roommate and tries to steal his sexy fiancée (MASH’s Sally Kellerman).

He also did his share of schlock because they helped put his five daughters through school. By this time his wife Suzy Parker had put her iconic modelling and brief critically panned acting career behind her. In between, he also did character work in movies he was proud of such as The Way We Were and The Iceman Cometh.

Regarding his career Dillman remarked “I’ve had a wonderful life. I married the most beautiful woman in the world. Together we raised six children, each remarkable in his or her own way and every one a responsible citizen. I was fortunate to work in a profession where I looked forward to going to work every day. I was rewarded with modest success. The work sent me to places all over the world I’d never been able to afford visiting otherwise.”

Review: Star Wars The Last Jedi 2017

Amid backlash and controversy Heather weighs in on Star Wars The Last Jedi

 By Heather Nichols, Tawfik Zone Contributor

Courtesy of aramajapan.com

There are SPOILERS in this review…You’ve been warned

Wow it has been a while since I reviewed a film, not that I haven’t been seeing films (though I totally missed the American Ghost in the Shell). There’s been a lot of things in my personal life and it hasn’t left much time to write so apologies, I’ll try to do more in this year.

The reaction to this film was certainly unexpected. After reading a handful of articles and fan reactions I wanted to take a moment to try and make sense of why this latest installment in the Star Wars franchise has brought such fan dissonance. Without further ado I’m going to dive right in. Given the nature of the backlash there will be spoilers abound so if you want to see it, do so and read this later.

I must start off by saying Critical Dissonance is nothing new to fandom in general (looking at you Game of Thrones) and certainly not new the Star Wars franchise. The direct prequel, The Force Awakens, has generally positive reviews from both critics and fans. But if you went to a convention and asked people in the fandom how they felt you may find as many people who enjoy it as there are who thought it was terrible.

Because there was such a huge gap in time between the conception of The Force Awakens and Return of the Jedi, many fan works had been created and many in the fandom consider them to be canon and were left feeling disappointed when Disney announced that all of those spinoffs would be discounted which rendered them into essentially published fanfiction. Obviously this has set off a chain reaction in terms of expectation versus what is actually canon which is something I’ll delve more into a little later on.

Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999)
Directed by George Lucas
Shown from left: Liam Neeson (as Qui-Gon Jinn), Ewan McGregor (as Obi-Wan Kenobi), Jar Jar Binks (voice: Ahmed Best), Keira Knightley (as Sabé, a handmaiden disguised as Queen Amidala), unidentified handmaiden, Natalie Portman (as Queen Padmé Amidala, disguised as a handmaiden)
© Lucasfilm Ltd.

The best example of dissonance comes from the now infamous prequel trilogy, it’s important to point out was produced before Disney gained the rights, which was always rated higher by film critics then by the general fanbase. My personal take: producing them was always going to be a challenge because you only have so much film to show how things got to their inevitable end point. From Episode 1 to 3 there is a gradual improvement. Really.  Watch them in order and you see they learn but the unfortunate part is that by the time that they did they had more than a dozen plot threads that needed to be wrapped up in about a two hour time frame…

However there is one thing the prequels executed well and kept consistent which was how the Jedi’s belief in a prophecy became their undoing. Well okay that’s putting it a bit too simply; it’s really how the Jedi misinterpreted a prophecy which led to their undoing. I could write an entire article on this but I’ll give you the nutshell so we can get to The Last Jedi and why this is relevant. The Jedi believed there would be a person born who would bring balance to the force.

Well, here’s the thing, all the Jedi trained to that point were essentially on the Light Side with only a small handful of Sith’s representing the Dark Side so really to bring balance, an actual balance to all this Light Side, essentially meant the birth of Darth Vader. The Jedi really didn’t read the fine print on that one.

Courtesy of etonline.com

Okay so now we have Last Jedi and instead of an Aesop revolving around prophecies and the consequences therefore within this film takes an approach to Iconoclasm and oh boy is this going to be a fun to break down because it functions both within the film and it’s targeted at the audience. So let’s start within the film when we last left our heroine Rey she found the legendary Luke Skywalker who has become a hermit in the middle of the galaxy waiting for death.

Again, LEGENDARY HERO, Luke Skywalker, is a grumpy old man who is living in isolation and is drinking nasty ass blue milk and has given up on teaching the ways of the Jedi. I can’t remember the exact quote but at some point Luke asks Rey if she expected him to just run up to the Republic waving a giant light sword and that would bring peace to the galaxy. Hey fandom, you know why you’re so pissed off? It’s because the film is calling you out for your belief in Luke Skywalker being put up on a pedestal.

Yes, that scenario sounds cool but while no one likes a Mary Sue fic, essentially this is what Skywalker has come to represent in the extended universe and for him to essentially become the exact opposite in a way is like going up to Adam West at a convention center and extending your hand because you’ve been in awe of him since you were a child, only for him to turn you away and look past you as if you’re not even there… that wasn’t awfully specific now was it?

Courtesy of IndieWire

Oh but wait there’s more. People were put off by the humor in the film. Really? People are getting sliced in half with light swords and the Resistance has been mowed down to only a handful of people, not to mention our beloved General has died in real life- I’m sorry but I welcome these light hearted parts because when you go from laughing to the silence there was when Laura Dern’s Vice Admiral Holdo’s kamikaze of an imperial starship, it creates a wallop of an impact.

While we’re here let’s talk a bit more about the female representation in the film because it seems that this is one of the other divisive aspects of the film. The women are as diverse in this film as they are fierce. On the side of the Resistance we have General Leia, Admiral Holdo, Rey, Rose and to a small extent Maz. On the opposite side we have Captain Phasma. All are strong and capable in their own ways bringing their own set of skills to the fray. In a time where all female reboots of popular films are being produced as quickly as hotcakes, some accuse the film of pandering to the millennial generation.

I’m not sure what exactly it is that makes this eligible for “pandering,” but I do know that pretty much any and all characters received some sort of fan backlash. Rey received backlash for being “too perfect of a character,” by virtue of she is a strong force wielder that came out of nowhere. Isn’t this true of most of the Jedi? And it’s not like she’s some magical prodigy or she would have wasted Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens. I’ll say she’s not entirely developed yet and leave it at that.

Another point of contention revolves around Admiral Holdo. Many on the forums say and I quote, “she’s just a complete bitch.” Okay so she’s an authoritative female leader in a military organization, got it. Many arguing she should have just told Poe what the master plan was, okay now despite how ragtag the resistance is- they’re still a military organization and Holdo is Poe’s superior officer and thus doesn’t owe him any explanation. As for the other issues of her seemingly coming out of nowhere this actually ties into the next outcry in regards to a very different female leader.

Courtesy of NME.com

There’s no better way of saying Phasma has gotten the short end of the stick in both of these films. After appearing so menacing in the trailer it took audiences aback in both this and the previous film that she was defeated so abruptly reducing her appearance to essentially a cameo. I did some digging- in both the cases of Holdo and Phasma they are much bigger figures in the novelization and graphic novels that accompany the films. The film makers said in interviews that Phasma’s development while crucial was just too complex and rich of a character that would be worthy of her own film series entirely. And so they’ve actually created a graphic novel to enrich the backstory of Phasma and it sounds like something I’ll want to check out in the near future.

Fans also had many issues with the Finn and Rose storyline. Complaints including their love story felt forced, that one of them should have died and that their whole storyline was for nothing- except that was the entire point and many people seem to have missed it. The love story I personally could take it or leave it, but think about this, emotions are running high and everyone thinks they’re gonna die so it makes some sense.

As for offing a major character- we’ve already lost thousands in the resistance and Luke Skywalker, let the two kids live (for now). A common trope in the fantasy genre (which Star Wars totally is) is the heroes will have to go through a series of tasks that seem impossible to acquire the Macguffin that is the key that will assure their victory. Except this movie pushed the bleakness up to eleven by denying them a victory and in fact leaving them worse off than when they started. It’s completely defied the expected tropes and brought the story to a very dark place. This film isn’t pandering to anyone and its left us on a cliffhanger at the bleakest moment.

So we don’t have a story that is pandering by creating diversity, we have two opposing factions; we have a group led by women, prominently featuring a Latino man, an Asian woman and a black man against an evil organization led by two white men. This of course is over simplifying it but to simply call it a millennial thing is missing the point entirely. (Also see Rogue One, this is not the first time a diverse cast has been used in the Star Wars Universe.)

Two throw away lines in the film actually explain why the stage has been set this way and do so beautifully. The first is when Luke says, “This is not going to end the way you think.” The other is after Kylo Ren has slain Snoke and wants Rey to join him, “Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. That’s the only way to become what you are meant to be.” This ties into a previous point of contention, remember when I mentioned expectation versus what is actually canon? Here we go…

Courtesy of nerdist.com

Immediately following the release of The Force Awakens, internet message boards were absolutely flooded by fan theories, among them, where did Snoke come from and who are Rey’s parents? (My money was on Palpatine). The film answers this, by not answering either, which even I’ll admit I feel cheated in some ways but it’s understandable given the theme of the film again tying back into Iconoclasm.

Star Wars is such an important fandom to so many people and the film essentially has just said, “we don’t care about your theories or nostalgia- we’re here to tell you a story.” This is not the same as saying “we don’t care about the fandom,” but unfortunately a large portion of the fandom seems to be taking it this way. The Force Awakens was often called out for relying too much on nostalgia and meeting fan expectation by essentially rehashing the plot of A New Hope, the original film.

This film takes characters on an unexpected journey and I too am feeling the divide, in fact I only give the film a 3/5 because to me it doesn’t stand alone. Instead, it’s part of a bigger picture. I’ve already touched on expectation versus reality but the one point I didn’t really delve too far into was the hacker character. He points out in a scene that the people who are getting rich sell weapons to both sides of the conflict and at the end of the day they both profit.

Well obviously you can make the argument about gun manufacturers but what if we applied that to Disney. It funds good movies, it funds bad movies- at the end of the day they’re making money regardless, except by that logic The Last Jedi is the film equivalent of giving the fanbase the finger because they know they’ll make money regardless… well we won’t know until episode IX…

Courtesy of The New Yorker

The biggest thing to take away is that visually the film is stunning, the effects and animation departments have outdone themselves. The score is moving, invoking the classic themes and providing a great accompaniment to the film on the whole. The plot only takes place of the course of a few days and in that time we really delve more into the characters, learning more about their motivations and raising the stakes in who is or isn’t going to make it out.

It’s also a giant social commentary. I sincerely hope the makers of the film aren’t making it simply to milk a cash cow and that by going against the grain they are really trying to forge a new story, a new legacy for the film saga that is 40 years in the making. Maybe at the end of the day Rey’s parents really don’t matter because the film makers don’t want us to root for her based on where she came from, but rather who she is.

A quote from the first Pokemon movie might best encompass this, “I see now that the circumstances of one’s birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.” Rey is her own character and the hero of the story and honestly I am still excited to see where episode IX is going to take her. In life you don’t have to come from a great family in order to do great things. Think of it from the perspective of someone whose family name has been tainted by shame and disappointment. Recently I read an article written by someone who was raised within the Kl Klux Klan and for a while they too were an active member until one day they realized the people you come from do not define you, that only you can define you.

Podcast: 1950s Horror

Hi everybody,

I’ve started a new position at my local library and I’ve met a colleague and friend Eddie Whitlock who listened to previous episodes of the Alternative Oscars and immediately proposed that we do a podcast on classic horror. Everybody at the Tawfik Zone, me, Candace and Tia, was all for it from the get go. The four of us discuss the state of horror in the 50s and mention many titles including House of Wax, Night of the Demon, The Wasp Woman, Curse of the Warewolf, and The Bad Seed. We give our definitions of horror. We ask you, what makes a movie horror?…..

If you want to catch up on our other podcast episodes, click here.