Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joanne Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Congrats. Will you have it framed?
>
> I was considering it. Trouble is, I’d like both
> sides to remain visible and I don’t know if this
> can be done.
Can you get some kind of a lucite frame, open on both sides?
> > Some of the Superman scripts were at least
> action
> > filled -- unlike Fire Maidens.
>
> Classical music, a voyage to Jupiter, nothing much
> happening at great length - but enough about 2001:
> A Space Odyssey, let’s talk about Fire Maidens
> from Outer Space.
>
> No, but, seriously, I’m working on a theory that
> Fire Maidens is the unacknowledged prototype for
> 2001. It may be hard work, but I will not shirk.
> I think.
>
> As for the pace, auteur Roth was clearly
> instantiating (within the bounds of
> practicability) the Aristotelian (or
> neo-Aristotelian) doctrine of the unity of time,
> such that, if something happens at all, it happens
> in real time, with no editorial falsification of
> the temporal sequence. So, for example, if the
> secretary walks down the stairs and then back up
> them, we watch her all the way down and we watch
> her all the way up.
>
> One is certainly left at the end of the film with
> the subjective impression of having endured a
> lengthy journey.
There were a lot of people at one time, some possibly still in existence, who felt
2001 required medication to be fully appreciated. Not so with
Fire Maidens. Compared with
2001, FM was non-stop action; a thoroughly spell-binding film. If FM was the prototype, then I think the model degenerated when it became
2001. I never liked the computer.
Maybe if the computer had smoked or used Brylcreem...no...I think not. IMO, after FM was made, the mold was broken.
> > IMO, George Reeves was basically more
> attractive
> > than Anthony Dexter -- Walter Craig --
> Walter
> > Whatever. Both may have been stuck in
> similar
> > situations for different reasons though
> > Walter/Anthony had a longer, apparently
> happier
> > life.
>
> I am happy to accept your judgement on this
> attractiveness question.
>
> I must admit to not knowing a lot about George
> Reeves (apart from what I’ve read very recently).
> If I ever saw the old TV series, it was when I was
> very young, too young to remember it. I must also
> admit that I find it hard to get past how silly
> the costume looks: high-waisted trunks were
> doubtless standard in the 1950s, but look a little
> odd now.
Opening credits:
[
www.youtube.com]
Action and Brylcreem:
[
www.youtube.com]
An account of his mysterious death (hosted by Tony Curtis
) is here, the basis of
Hollywoodland:
[
www.youtube.com]
A tribute with clips:
[
www.youtube.com]
> On the other hand: this is a naturally muscular
> physique, not the body-fascist bodybuilder look
> which is increasingly expected these days.
According to
Hollywoodland, he was padded...I think some of the padding is visible under the costume in some shots, if you look closely...
> > It is odd that these films are advertised as
> > "double dynamite for live showmen". What
> does
> > that mean? Do you have to be a "live
> showman,"
> > whatever that may be, to really get the full
> > impact (aka "double dynamite")? Is it a
> misprint,
> > d'ya think? Maybe there was an accompanying
> live
> > show and "for" should read "with" ? It's
> > confusing...
>
> A puzzle for me also. I can only guess at the
> idiom. Perhaps we are to understand it in the
> sense of “a real live wire” (i.e. a metaphorically
> live wire).
>
> So, perhaps we may reconstruct the phrase
> (restoring a conjectured aboriginal double
> alliteration) as, “DOUBLE DYNAMITE FOR SHOCKING
> SHOWMEN”.
>
> See also (for a fascinating fact) How they are
> related (no. 1).
I will