Saturday, 2 April 2022

Gentleman's Agreement 1947 Movie

 

Gentleman's Agreement 1947 Movie

1.     Philip Schuyler Green (Gregory Peck) is a widowed journalist who has just moved to New York City with his son Tommy (Dean Stockwell) and mother (Anne Revere).

 

2.     Green meets with magazine publisher John Minify (Albert Dekker), who asks Green, a Gentile (a person who is not Jewish), to write an article on anti-Semitism ("Some people don't like other people just because they're Jews").

 

3.      He is not very enthusiastic at first, but after initially struggling with how to approach the topic in a fresh way, Green is inspired to adopt a Jewish identity ("Phil Greenberg") and writes about his first-hand experiences.

 

4.     At a lunch party, Phil meets Minify's divorced niece Kathy Lacey (Dorothy McGuire), a pre-school teacher, who turns out to be the person who originally suggested the story idea.

 

5.     The next day, Phil tries to explain anti-Jewish prejudice to his young, precocious son – directly after displaying some anti-female prejudice of his own.

 

6.     Green tells his mother that he's struck by the odd notion that the idea for the article came from "a girl" at the magazine.

 

7.     His mother replies, "Why, women will be thinking next".

 

8.     Phil and Kathy begin dating. They agree to keep it secret that Phil is not Jewish.

 

9.     Phil has difficulty getting started on his assignment.

 

10. He realizes he can never feel what another person feels unless he experiences it himself.

 

11. He recalls having "lived as an Okie on Route 66" or as a coal miner for previous writing jobs, instead of tapping a man on the shoulder and making him talk.

 

12. He then decides to write, "I Was Jewish for Six Months".

 

13. Though Kathy seems to have liberal views, when he reveals what he intends to do, she is taken aback and asks if he actually is Jewish.

 

14.  The strain on their relationship due to Kathy's subtle acquiescence to bigotry becomes a key theme in the film.

 

15. At the magazine, Phil is assigned a secretary, Elaine Wales (June Havoc), who reveals that she, too, is Jewish.

 

16. She changed her name to get the job (her application under her real, Jewish-sounding name, Estelle Wilovsky, was rejected).

 

17. After Phil informs Minify about Wales' experience, Minify orders the magazine to adopt hiring policies that are open to Jews.

 

18. Wales has reservations about the new policy, fearing that the "wrong Jews" will be hired and ruin things for the few Jews working there now.

 

19. Phil meets fashion editor Anne Dettrey (Celeste Holm), who becomes a good friend and potentially more, particularly as strains develop between Phil and Kathy.

 

20. Phil's childhood friend, Dave Goldman (John Garfield), who is Jewish, moves to New York for a job and lives with the Greens while he looks for a home for his family.

 

21. Dave also experiences anti-Semitism, when someone in the armed forces tells him that he hates Jews, and they get into a brief fight before the prejudiced soldier is taken away.

 

22. Housing is scarce in the city, but it is particularly difficult for Goldman, since not all landlords will rent to a Jewish family. When Phil tells Dave about his project, Dave is supportive, but concerned.

 

23. As Phil researches his story, he experiences several incidents of bigotry.

 

24. When his mother becomes ill with a heart condition, the doctor discourages him from consulting a specialist with an obviously Jewish name, suggesting he might be cheated.

 

25. When Phil reveals that he is himself Jewish, the doctor becomes uncomfortable and leaves.

 

26. In addition, the janitor is shocked to see that a Jewish name is listed on the mail box, instead of his Christian name.

 

27. Furthermore, when Phil wants to celebrate his honeymoon at a swanky hotel for rich people in the country, the hotel manager refuses to register Phil, because Phil is Jewish, and tells him to register at a different hotel instead.

 

28. Tommy becomes the target of bullies when his schoolmates discover he is Jewish.

 

29. Phil is troubled by the way Kathy consoles Tommy, telling him their taunts of "dirty Jew" are wrong because he isn't Jewish, not that the epithet is wrong in and of itself.

 

30. Kathy's attitudes are revealed further when she and Phil announce their engagement.

 

31. Her sister Jane (Jane Wyatt) invites them to a celebration in her home in Darien, Connecticut, which is known to be a "restricted" community where Jews are not welcome.

 

32. Fearing an awkward scene, Kathy wants to tell her family and friends that Phil is only pretending to be a Jew, but Phil prevails on Kathy to tell only Jane.

 

33. At the party, everyone is very friendly to Phil, though many people are "unable" to attend at the last minute.

 

34. Dave announces that he will have to quit his job because he cannot find a residence for his family.

 

35. Kathy owns a vacant cottage in Darien, but though Phil sees it as the obvious solution to Dave's problem, Kathy is unwilling to offend her neighbours by renting it to a Jewish family.

 

36. She and Phil break their engagement.

 

37. Phil announces that he will be moving away from New York when his article is published.

 

38. When it comes out, it is very well received by the magazine staff.

 

39. Kathy meets with Dave and tells him how sick she felt when a party guest told a bigoted joke.

 

40. However, she has no answer when Dave repeatedly asks her what she did about it.

 

41. She comes to realize that remaining silent condones the prejudice.

 

42. The next day, Dave tells Phil that he and his family will be moving into the cottage in Darien, and Kathy will be moving in with her sister next door to make sure they are treated well by their neighbors.

 

43. When Phil hears this, he reconciles with Kathy.

 

 



 

 

 

జెంటిల్మన్ అగ్రిమెంట్ (1947)

క్లుప్తంగా కథ

 

1.     ఫిలిప్ షుయ్లర్ గ్రీన్ (గ్రెగొరీ పెక్) ఒక వితంతువు పాత్రికేయుడు, అతను తన కొడుకు టామీ (డీన్ స్టాక్వెల్) మరియు తల్లి (అన్నే రెవెరే)తో కలిసి న్యూయార్క్ నగరానికి మారాడు.

 

2.     గ్రీన్ మ్యాగజైన్ పబ్లిషర్ జాన్ మినిఫై (ఆల్బర్ట్ డెక్కర్)తో సమావేశమయ్యాడు, అతను యూదు వ్యతిరేకతపై ఒక కథనాన్ని రాయమని గ్రీన్, ఒక జెంటిల్ (యూదు కాని వ్యక్తి)ని అడిగాడు ("కొంతమంది వ్యక్తులు ఇతరులను ఇష్టపడరు. వారు యూదులు ").

 

3.     అతను మొదట్లో చాలా ఉత్సాహంగా లేడు, అయితే టాపిక్ను తాజా మార్గంలో ఎలా చేరుకోవాలనే దానితో మొదట్లో పోరాడిన తర్వాత, గ్రీన్ యూదు గుర్తింపు ("ఫిల్ గ్రీన్బర్గ్")ని స్వీకరించడానికి ప్రేరణ పొందాడు మరియు అతని మొదటి అనుభవాల గురించి వ్రాసాడు.

 

4.     ఒక లంచ్ పార్టీలో, ఫిల్ మినిఫై యొక్క విడాకులు తీసుకున్న మేనకోడలు కాథీ లేసీ (డోరతీ మెక్గ్యురే), ఒక ప్రీ-స్కూల్ టీచర్ను కలుస్తాడు, ఆమె కథ ఆలోచనను మొదట సూచించిన వ్యక్తి అని తేలింది.

 

5.     మరుసటి రోజు, ఫిల్ తన చిన్న వయస్సులో ఉన్న తన కుమారుడికి యూదు వ్యతిరేక పక్షపాతాన్ని వివరించడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తాడు - నేరుగా తన స్వంత స్త్రీ-వ్యతిరేక పక్షపాతాన్ని ప్రదర్శించిన తర్వాత.

 

6.     కథనం యొక్క ఆలోచన పత్రికలోని "ఒక అమ్మాయి" నుండి వచ్చిందనే విచిత్రమైన భావనతో తాను తల్లడిల్లిపోయానని గ్రీన్ తన తల్లికి చెప్పాడు.

 

7.     అతని తల్లి, "ఎందుకు, స్త్రీలు తదుపరి ఆలోచిస్తారు" అని సమాధానమిస్తుంది.

 

8.     ఫిల్ మరియు కాథీ డేటింగ్ ప్రారంభిస్తారు. ఫిల్ యూదు కాదని రహస్యంగా ఉంచడానికి వారు అంగీకరిస్తున్నారు.

 

9.     ఫిల్ తన అసైన్మెంట్ను ప్రారంభించడం కష్టం.

 

10. మరొక వ్యక్తి తన అనుభూతిని అనుభవించనంత వరకు తాను ఎప్పుడూ అనుభూతి చెందలేనని అతను గ్రహించాడు.

 

11. అతను "రూట్ 66లో ఓకీగా జీవించాడు" లేదా ఒక వ్యక్తిని భుజం మీద తట్టి అతనిని మాట్లాడేలా చేయడానికి బదులుగా, మునుపటి వ్రాత పనుల కోసం బొగ్గు గని కార్మికుడిగా జీవించినట్లు గుర్తుచేసుకున్నాడు.

 

12. అతను "నేను ఆరు నెలలు యూదుని" అని వ్రాయాలని నిర్ణయించుకున్నాడు.

 

13. కాథీకి ఉదారవాద దృక్పథాలు ఉన్నట్లు కనిపిస్తున్నప్పటికీ, అతను ఏమి చేయాలనుకుంటున్నాడో వెల్లడించినప్పుడు, ఆమె ఆశ్చర్యానికి గురైంది మరియు అతను నిజంగా యూదుడా అని అడుగుతుంది.

 

14. కాథీ మతోన్మాదానికి సూక్ష్మంగా అంగీకరించడం వల్ల వారి సంబంధంపై ఒత్తిడి సినిమాలో కీలక అంశంగా మారుతుంది.

 

15. మ్యాగజైన్లో, ఫిల్కి ఎలైన్ వేల్స్ (జూన్ హవోక్) అనే సెక్రటరీని నియమించారు, ఆమె కూడా యూదు అని వెల్లడిస్తుంది.

 

16. ఉద్యోగం పొందడానికి ఆమె తన పేరును మార్చుకుంది (ఆమె నిజమైన, యూదు-ధ్వని పేరు, ఎస్టేల్ విలోవ్స్కీ కింద ఆమె దరఖాస్తు తిరస్కరించబడింది).

 

17. వేల్స్ అనుభవం గురించి ఫిల్ మినిఫైకి తెలియజేసిన తర్వాత, యూదులకు అందుబాటులో ఉండే నియామక విధానాలను అనుసరించమని మినిఫై మ్యాగజైన్ని ఆదేశించింది.

 

18. "తప్పు యూదులు" నియమించబడతారని మరియు ఇప్పుడు అక్కడ పనిచేస్తున్న కొద్దిమంది యూదుల కోసం వాటిని నాశనం చేస్తారనే భయంతో వేల్స్ కొత్త విధానం గురించి రిజర్వేషన్లను కలిగి ఉంది.

 

19. ఫిల్ ఫ్యాషన్ ఎడిటర్ అన్నే డెట్రీ (సెలెస్టే హోల్మ్)ని కలుస్తాడు, అతను మంచి స్నేహితురాలు అవుతాడు మరియు ముఖ్యంగా ఫిల్ మరియు కాథీ మధ్య జాతులు అభివృద్ధి చెందుతాయి.

 

20. ఫిల్ యొక్క చిన్ననాటి స్నేహితుడు, యూదు అయిన డేవ్ గోల్డ్మన్ (జాన్ గార్ఫీల్డ్), ఉద్యోగం కోసం న్యూయార్క్కు వెళ్లి తన కుటుంబానికి ఇంటి కోసం వెతుకుతున్నప్పుడు గ్రీన్స్తో కలిసి నివసిస్తున్నాడు.

 

21. డేవ్ కూడా యూదుల వ్యతిరేకతను అనుభవిస్తాడు, సాయుధ దళాలలో ఎవరైనా అతను యూదులను ద్వేషిస్తున్నాడని చెప్పినప్పుడు మరియు పక్షపాతంతో ఉన్న సైనికుడిని తీసుకెళ్లడానికి ముందు వారు క్లుప్త పోరాటానికి దిగారు.

 

22. నగరంలో గృహాలు చాలా తక్కువగా ఉన్నాయి, కానీ గోల్డ్మన్కి ఇది చాలా కష్టం, ఎందుకంటే అందరు భూస్వాములు యూదు కుటుంబానికి అద్దెకు ఇవ్వరు. ఫిల్ డేవ్కి తన ప్రాజెక్ట్ గురించి చెప్పినప్పుడు, డేవ్ మద్దతుగా ఉన్నాడు, కానీ ఆందోళన చెందుతాడు.

 

23. ఫిల్ తన కథనాన్ని పరిశోధిస్తున్నప్పుడు, అతను మతోన్మాదానికి సంబంధించిన అనేక సంఘటనలను అనుభవిస్తాడు.

 

24. అతని తల్లి గుండె జబ్బుతో బాధపడుతున్నప్పుడు, అతను మోసం చేయబడవచ్చని సూచిస్తూ, స్పష్టంగా యూదు పేరు ఉన్న నిపుణుడిని సంప్రదించకుండా వైద్యుడు అతన్ని నిరుత్సాహపరుస్తాడు.

 

25. తాను యూదుడినని ఫిల్ వెల్లడించినప్పుడు, వైద్యుడు అసౌకర్యానికి గురై వెళ్ళిపోతాడు.

 

26. అదనంగా, కాపలాదారు మెయిల్ పెట్టెలో తన క్రైస్తవ పేరుకు బదులుగా ఒక యూదు పేరు నమోదు చేయడాన్ని చూసి ఆశ్చర్యపోతాడు.

 

27. ఇంకా, ఫిల్ తన హనీమూన్ను దేశంలోని ధనవంతుల కోసం హనీమూన్ జరుపుకోవాలని కోరుకున్నప్పుడు, హోటల్ మేనేజర్ ఫిల్ని రిజిస్టర్ చేసుకోవడానికి నిరాకరించాడు, ఎందుకంటే ఫిల్ యూదుడు, మరియు బదులుగా వేరే హోటల్లో రిజిస్టర్ చేసుకోమని చెప్పాడు.

 

28. అతను యూదుడని అతని స్కూల్మేట్లు గుర్తించినప్పుడు టామీ బెదిరింపులకు గురి అవుతాడు.

 

29. కాథీ టామీని ఓదార్చడం ద్వారా ఫిల్ కలవరపడ్డాడు, "మురికిగా ఉన్న యూదు" అనే వారి నిందలు తప్పని, ఎందుకంటే అతను యూదుడు కాదనీ, పేరు స్వతహాగా తప్పు అని కాదు.

 

30. ఆమె మరియు ఫిల్ తమ నిశ్చితార్థాన్ని ప్రకటించినప్పుడు కాథీ యొక్క వైఖరులు మరింతగా బహిర్గతమవుతాయి.

 

31. ఆమె సోదరి జేన్ (జేన్ వ్యాట్) కనెక్టికట్లోని డేరియన్లోని తన ఇంటిలో ఒక వేడుకకు వారిని ఆహ్వానిస్తుంది, ఇది యూదులను స్వాగతించని "నిరోధిత" సంఘంగా పేరుగాంచింది.

 

32. ఒక ఇబ్బందికరమైన సన్నివేశానికి భయపడి, కాథీ తన కుటుంబం మరియు స్నేహితులకు ఫిల్ యూదుడిలా మాత్రమే నటిస్తున్నాడని చెప్పాలనుకుంటోంది, అయితే జేన్కి మాత్రమే చెప్పడానికి కాథీపై ఫిల్ విజయం సాధించాడు.

 

33. పార్టీలో, ఫిల్తో అందరూ చాలా స్నేహపూర్వకంగా ఉంటారు, అయినప్పటికీ చాలా మంది వ్యక్తులు చివరి నిమిషంలో హాజరు కాలేకపోయారు.

 

34. తన కుటుంబానికి నివాసం దొరకనందున తన ఉద్యోగాన్ని విడిచిపెట్టవలసి ఉంటుందని డేవ్ ప్రకటించాడు.

 

35. కాథీ డేరియన్లో ఖాళీగా ఉన్న కాటేజీని కలిగి ఉంది, అయితే డేవ్ సమస్యకు ఫిల్ దానిని స్పష్టమైన పరిష్కారంగా భావించినప్పటికీ, కాథీ దానిని యూదు కుటుంబానికి అద్దెకు ఇవ్వడం ద్వారా తన పొరుగువారిని కించపరచడానికి ఇష్టపడదు.

 

36. ఆమె మరియు ఫిల్ వారి నిశ్చితార్థాన్ని విచ్ఛిన్నం చేశారు.

 

37. తన కథనం ప్రచురించబడినప్పుడు తాను న్యూయార్క్ నుండి దూరంగా వెళ్తున్నట్లు ఫిల్ ప్రకటించాడు.

 

38. ఇది బయటకు వచ్చినప్పుడు, పత్రిక సిబ్బంది నుండి చాలా బాగా ఆదరించబడుతుంది.

 

39. కాథీ డేవ్ని కలుసుకుని, ఒక పార్టీ అతిథి ఒక మూర్ఖపు జోక్ని చెప్పినప్పుడు ఆమె ఎంత అస్వస్థతకు గురైందో అతనికి చెప్పింది.

 

40. అయితే, దాని గురించి ఆమె ఏమి చేసిందని డేవ్ ఆమెను పదే పదే అడిగినప్పుడు ఆమెకు సమాధానం లేదు.

 

41. మౌనంగా ఉండటం పక్షపాతాన్ని మన్నిస్తుంది అని ఆమె గ్రహించింది.

 

42. మరుసటి రోజు, డేవ్ అతను మరియు అతని కుటుంబం డేరియన్లోని కాటేజ్లోకి మారుతున్నట్లు ఫిల్తో చెప్పాడు, మరియు కాథీ తమ పొరుగువారు తమను బాగా చూసుకుంటున్నారని నిర్ధారించుకోవడానికి పక్కనే ఉన్న తన సోదరితో కలిసి వెళుతుందని చెప్పాడు.

 

43. ఫిల్ ఇది విన్నప్పుడు, అతను కాథీతో రాజీపడతాడు.

 

Wednesday, 12 January 2022

మనసు దోచిన కోర్ట్ రూమ్ డ్రామాస్

 మనసుదోచిన కోర్ట్ రూమ్ డ్రామాస్

Dec 27 2021 @ 13:37PM


కోర్టు రూమ్ డ్రామాస్ కు ఎప్పుడూ మంచి రీచ్ ఉంటుంది.  కథాకథనాలు ఆసక్తికరమైన రీతిలో ఉండి.. చక్కటి ఎమోషన్స్ కూ చోటు కల్పిస్తే అలాంటి సినిమాలు ఎప్పుడూ  ప్రేక్షకాదరణను పొందుతూనే ఉంటాయి. 2021 లో ఆ తరహాలోనే పలు చిత్రాలు విడుదలయ్యాయి. చేయని నేరానికి జైలుకు వెళ్ళడం.. హీరో/హీరోయిన్ అయిన లాయర్ అలాంటి వారి తరపున అండగా నిలబడి బల్ల గుద్ది మరీ వాదించడం.. చివరికి ఆ కేసును ఉత్కంఠను గొలిపే తీర్పుతో గెలచుకోవడం.. ఈ కాన్సెప్ట్స్ లోని కామన్ పాయింట్. మరి ఈ ఏడాది అలాంటి మనసుదోచిన కోర్ట్ రూమ్ డ్రామాస్ ఏమేం ఉన్నాయో చూసేద్దాం...

వకీల్ సాబ్ పవర్ స్టార్ పవన్‌కళ్యాణ్ మూడేళ్ళ గ్యాప్ తర్వాత కమ్ బ్యాక్ ఇచ్చిన ప్రత్యేకమైన చిత్రం ‘వకీల్‌సాబ్’ . పింక్ బాలీవుడ్ సూపర్ హిట్ మూవీ రీమేక్ గా వేణు శ్రీరామ్ తెరకెక్కించిన ఈ సినిమాను దిల్ రాజు నిర్మించారు. ‘పింక్’ మూవీ కాన్సెప్ట్ ను అజిత్ తమిళ చిత్రం ‘నేర్కొండ పార్వై’ ఫార్మేట్ లో మలిచి పవర్ స్టార్ అభిమానులకు మంచి ఫీస్ట్ ఇచ్చిన చిత్రమిది. వివిధ ప్రాంతాలనుంచి హైద్రాబాద్ వచ్చి ఒక హాస్టల్ లో ఉంటున్న ముగ్గురు అమ్మాయిలు.. వారి స్నేహితులైన కొందరు అబ్బాయిల వల్ల ఒక గొడవలో ఇరుక్కుంటారు. దాని వల్ల ఆ అమ్మాయిల జీవితాలు రోడ్డున పడే ప్రమాదం ఏర్పడుతుంది. ఆ గొడవ కోర్ట్ కేసు వరకూ వెళుతుంది. ఆ పరిస్థితుల్లో ఆ అమ్మాయిల తరపున సత్యదేవ్ అనే ఒక వకీల్ నిలబడి.. వారికి న్యాయం చేయడమే ఈ సినిమా కథాంశం. బలమైన కోర్ట్ సన్నివేశాలే ఈ సినిమాను నిలబెట్టాయి. ముఖ్యంగా ప్రకాశ్ రాజ్, పవన్ మధ్య వచ్చే సీన్స్ విజిల్స్ వేయించాయి. పవర్ స్టార్ పవర్ ప్యాక్డ్ పెర్ఫార్మెన్స్ ఈ సినిమాకే హైలైట్. 

జైభీమ్ తమిళ హీరో సూర్య లాయర్ గా నటించిన చిత్రం ‘జైభీమ్’. చంద్రు అనే ఒక లాయర్ నిజజీవిత కథగా ఈ సినిమా తెరకెక్కింది. జ్ఞానవేల్ దర్శకత్వంలో తెరకెక్కిన ఈ సినిమా ఓటీటీలో విడుదలైంది. తమిళంతో పాటు తెలుగు, కన్నడ, మలయాళ, హిందీ భాషల్లో సైతం ఈ సినిమా విడుదలైంది. చేయని నేరానికి జైలు పాలైన ముగ్గురు గిరిజనులు అదృశ్యమవుతారు. అందులో ఒకరి భార్య తనకు న్యాయం చేయమని కోర్ట్ మెట్లు ఎక్కుతుంది. ఆ పరిస్థితుల్లో చంద్రు అనే ఒక లాయర్ ఈ కేసు ను వాదించి ఆమెకు న్యాయం చేయడమే ఈ సినిమా కథాంశం. ఇందులోని సహజమైన సన్నివేశాలు, ఎమోషన్స్ సినిమాను నిలబెట్టాయి. విమర్శకుల ప్రసంశలు సైతం అందుకున్న ఈ సినిమా వరల్డ్ నెం. 1 మూవీగా నిలిచింది. చంద్రుగా సూర్య నటనకి మంచి ప్రశంసలు దక్కాయి. ఆసక్తికరమైన కోర్ట్ రూమ్ సన్నివేశాలు, గుండెను పిండేసే ఎమోషన్స్ ఈ సినిమాను నిలబెట్టాయి. 

నాందిఅల్లరి నరేశ్ ప్రధాన పాత్రలో నటించిన సూపర్ హిట్ చిత్రం ‘నాంది’. కొత్త దర్శకుడు విజయ్ కనకమేడల తెరకెక్కించిన ఈ కోర్ట్ రూమ్ డ్రామా ప్రేక్షకుల్ని మెప్పించింది. ఒక హత్యకేసులో ప్రధాన నిందితుడిగా కోర్టు మెట్లు ఎక్కిన ఒక యువకుడి తరపున ఒక లాయర్ నిలబడి.. అతడి నిర్ధోషిత్వాన్ని నిరూపించడమే ఈ సినిమా కథాంశం. ఈ పాత్ర కోసం అల్లరి నరేశ్ నగ్నంగా కూడా నటించాడు. సహజమైన నటనతో.. ఆకట్టుకున్నాడు నరేశ్, లాయర్ గా వరలక్ష్మి శరత్ కుమార్ అద్భుతమైన నటనను ప్రదర్శించింది. ఈ సినిమా అల్లరి నరేశ్ కు నటుడిగా పునర్జన్మనిచ్చిందని చెప్పొచ్చు. ఇందులోని కోర్ట్ సన్నివేశాలు ఆసక్తికరంగా సాగుతాయి. అలాగే.. చక్కటి ఎమోషన్స్ కూడా పండడంతో సినిమాకు ప్రేక్షకులు బాగా కనెక్ట్ అయ్యారు. 

తిమ్మరుసు టాలీవుడ్ టాలెంటెడ్ హీరో సత్యదేవ్ లాయర్ గా నటించిన కోర్ట్ రూమ్ థ్రిల్లర్ తిమ్మరుసు. ఆపరేషన్ వాలి ట్యాగ్ లైన్ తో రూపొందిన ఈ సినిమాకి శరణ్ కొప్పిశెట్టి దర్శకుడు. కన్నడ చిత్రం ‘బీర్బల్ ట్రయాలజీ కేస్ 1: ఫైండింగ్ వజ్రముని’ చిత్రానికిది అఫీషియల్ రీమేక్.  ఒక మర్డర్ ను స్వయంగా చూసిన ఒక యువకుడు అదే మర్డర్ కేసులో నిందితుడిగా ఇరికించబడతాడు. ఆ పరిస్థితుల్లో అతడి తరపున రామచంద్ర అనే లాయర్ కేసు వాదిస్తాడు. ఆ క్రమంలో ఎన్నో ఆశ్చర్యకరమైన విషయాలు తెలుస్తాయి. చివరికి ఆ కేసు నుంచి అమాయకుడైన ఆ యువకుడు ఎలా బైటపడతాడు? అన్నదే మిగతా కథ. ఆసక్తికరమైన కథాకథనాలతో, ఉత్కంఠను గొలిపే కోర్ట్ రూమ్ సన్నివేశాలతో ఈ సినిమా ఆద్యంతం కట్టిపడేస్తుంది. ఈ సినిమాకి ప్రేక్షకులు బాగా కనెక్ట్ అయి.. సినిమాను సూపర్ హిట్ చేశారు. 

చెక్నితిన్ హీరోగా.. ఏలేటి చంద్రశేఖర్ దర్శకత్వంలో రూపొందిన కోర్ట్ రూమ్ థ్రిల్లర్ ‘చెక్’. చేయని నేరానికి జైలు పాలైన ఒక యువకుడు చదరంగంలో గ్రాండ్ మాస్టర్ గా ఎదిగి తన నిర్దోషిత్వాన్ని ఎలా నిరూపించుకున్నాడు అన్నదే ఈ సినిమా కథాంశం. ఉగ్రదాడిలో 40 మంది మరణానికి కారణమయ్యాడనే కారణంగా హీరోకి ఉరిశిక్ష వేస్తారు. అలా జైలుకు వెళ్ళిన హీరో అక్కడ ఒకరి సహాయంతో చెస్ నేర్చుకొని ఛాంపియన్ అయి..  రాష్ట్రపతిని క్షమాభిక్ష అర్ధిస్తాడు.  చివరికి అతడు జైలు నుంచి విడుదలయ్యాడా లేదా అన్నదే మిగతా కథ. కోర్ట్ రూమ్ సన్నివేశాలు, చెస్ ముడిపడి ఉన్న సీన్స్ ఆసక్తిని కలిగిస్తాయి. అయితే బాక్సాఫీస్ వద్ద ఈ సినిమా యావరేజ్ గా నిలిచింది. ఇందులో హీరో తరపున వాదించే లాయర్ గా రకుల్ ప్రీత్ సింగ్ నటించింది. -రామకృష్ణ కుమార్ 


Monday, 10 January 2022

The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies

 The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies: A Critic's Ranking of the Very Best was a 1998 book published by Kathryn Bernheimer. Bernheimer ranked the "top 50" films dealing with Jewish topics.[1]



Contents

1 List

2 References

3 Further reading

4 External links

List

Rank Title Year Rating Director

1 The Chosen 1981 PG Jeremy Paul Kagan

2 Schindler's List 1993 R Steven Spielberg

3 Shoah 1985 NR Claude Lanzmann

4 The Jazz Singer 1927 NR Alan Crosland

5 Annie Hall 1977 PG Woody Allen

6 Funny Girl 1968 G William Wyler

7 Gentleman's Agreement 1947 NR Elia Kazan

8 Exodus 1960 NR Otto Preminger

9 Ben-Hur (a Christian movie) 1959 NR William Wyler

10 The Ten Commandments 1956 G Cecil B. DeMille

11 Crossing Delancey 1988 PG Joan Micklin Silver

12 The Golem 1920 NR Paul Wegener and Carl Boese

13 Au revoir, les enfants 1987 PG Louis Malle

14 Almonds and Raisins: A History of the Yiddish Cinema 1985[2][3] NR Russ Karel[4][5]

15 Enemies, a Love Story 1989 R Paul Mazursky

16 The Great Dictator 1940 NR Charlie Chaplin

17 The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz 1974 PG Ted Kotcheff

18 Blazing Saddles 1974 R Mel Brooks

19 Chariots of Fire 1981 PG Hugh Hudson

20 Body and Soul 1947 NR Robert Rossen

21 The Pawnbroker 1965 NR Sidney Lumet

22 Goodbye, Columbus 1969 PG Larry Peerce

23 Bugsy 1991 R Barry Levinson

24 Cabaret 1972 PG Bob Fosse

25 Crimes and Misdemeanors 1989 PG-13 Woody Allen

26 The Last Angry Man 1959 NR Daniel Mann

27 The Outside Chance of Maximilian Glick 1988 G Allan Goldstein

28 Job's Revolt 1983 NR Imre Gyöngyössy and Barna Kabay

29 Homicide 1991 R David Mamet

30 Madame Rosa 1977 PG Moshé Mizrahi

31 Driving Miss Daisy 1989 PG Bruce Beresford

32 Reversal of Fortune 1990 R Barbet Schroeder

33 Europa Europa 1991 R Agnieszka Holland (Judeo-Catholic)

34 The Big Fix 1978 PG Jeremy Kagan

35 Broadway Danny Rose 1984 PG Woody Allen

36 Julia 1977 PG Fred Zinnemann

37 Marathon Man 1976 R John Schlesinger

38 A Majority of One 1962 NR Mervyn LeRoy

39 Oliver! 1968 G Carol Reed

40 Down and Out in Beverly Hills 1986 R Paul Mazursky

41 Holocaust 1978 NR Marvin Chomsky

42 Dirty Dancing 1987 PG-13 Emile Ardolino

43 The Front 1976 PG Martin Ritt

44 Biloxi Blues 1988 PG-13 Mike Nichols

45 The Diary of Anne Frank 1959 NR George Stevens

46 Shine 1996 PG-13 Scott Hicks

47 Daniel 1983 R Sidney Lumet

48 Yentl 1983 PG Barbra Streisand

49 The Young Lions 1958 NR Edward Dmytryk

50 Marjorie Morningstar 1958 NR Irving Rapper





Critic's Ranking of the Very Best'

Author: 

Kathryn Bernheimer

Reviewer: 

Solomon Davidoff


Kathryn Bernheimer. The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies: A Critic's Ranking of the Very Best. Secaucus, N.J.: Carol Publishing Group, 1998. xi + 212 pp. $21.95 (paper), ISBN 978-1-55972-457-9.


Reviewed by Solomon Davidoff (Bowling Green State University)

Published on H-Film (April, 1999)


Eight Fingers


I have often wondered, if we had only eight fingers instead of ten, would we be producing lists of the Thirty-Two Greatest (fill in subject here) of all time? I ask the question, because while Bernheimer attempts to categorize Jewish oriented film into the fifty greatest of all time, she notes the difficulty that the restriction places upon her, and how she has to sneak in other worthy titles among her reviews, mentioning The Frisco Kid when discussing Blazing Saddles for instance.


Bernheimer provides commentary for each of the fifty films that begins with the standard information (title, studio, year of release, primary cast, director, length and rating) and a description of the entire photoplay, but goes into both positive and negative commentary. This is unlike some motion picture review books, which not only offer only positive commentary, but do not discuss the entire plot of the film, including the conclusion. While as a viewer I do not wish to be aware of a movie's conclusion before seeing it, I do want that information when reading full commentary of a production and its historical and cultural importance.


"For the purposes of this book," says Bernheimer, "I define (a Jewish movie) as a film that examines an aspect of the Jewish experience and features at least one clearly defined Jewish central character" (p. ix). This definition--an excellent starting point--explains the presence and absence of a variety of titles of import. Previous similar lists have focused on seminal historical events of import to the Jewish community, such as the Holocaust, but Bernheimer does not limit herself (beyond this definition) in any way. A key aspect of this, is that she includes pictures by both Jewish directors (such as Sidney Lumet, Woody Allen, Otto Preminger and Steven Spielberg), plus films by non-Jews (such as Edward Dmytryk, Hugh Hudson and Norman Jewison). While commentary has been made that only someone with intimate knowledge of a community can accurately direct or play the role of a member, this explanation being used to explain the absence of some texts in commentary, I feel that Rod Steiger's performance in both The Chosen and The Pawnbroker belies this comment. (I also agree with Bernheimer, at least in that The Chosen is one of the most important Jewish films of all time).


Bernheimer's list does not specify titles by category, but instead lists films by importance, acknowledging that she has biases when deciding. A nice feature she includes is to begin at the top of the list with her number one selection, The Chosen, following on through to her fiftieth, Marjorie Morningstar, which implies to me the importance of all the films on her list, rather than making reading the commentary an anticipatory exercise, focusing more on what is to come, rather than what is being read. Bernheimer's list is a top fifty, focusing on all film genres and styles. Also of note is that telefilms, such as Holocaust and Shoah, and documentaries, like Almonds and Raisins: A History of the Yiddish Cinema, are included in her listing. Many such lists will consider only films that were created for the silver screen, or will ignore documentaries. If there is a fault in Bernheimer's compilation, it is that she refers to a list of more than 250 films with Jewish characters and subjects that are available on video, but does not supply that list as an appendix. It would have been informative, and interesting, to note the films that made up her starting point. The survey ranges from the 1920 silent production of The Golem, to Shine from 1996, and covers all genres and filming techniques (except animation), including spectacles (Ben-Hur), musicals (Oliver!), gangster films (Bugsy), war stories (Europa, Europa) and comedies (Goodbye Columbus).


When considering the importance of this film survey, I am reminded of that famous stage production by Bob Booker and George Foster, You Don't Have To Be Jewish. Bernheimer's book offers a look into the representation of a widely misunderstood culture, in a clear and concise style that gives the subject the attention it deserves.


This review is copyrighted by Film & History: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies and the Historians Film Committee, http://www.h-net.msu.edu/~filmhis/. It may be reproduced electronically for educational or scholarly use. The Film & History reserves print rights and permissions. (Contact: P.C.Rollins at the following electronic address: Rollinspc@aol.com).


Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=3038


Citation: Solomon Davidoff. Review of Bernheimer, Kathryn, The 50 Greatest Jewish Movies: A Critic's Ranking of the Very Best. H-Film, H-Net Reviews. April, 1999.

URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=3038


Copyright © 1999 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.msu.edu.

Saturday, 26 June 2021

‘The Courier’ review: Benedict Cumberbatch is the highlight of Cold-War era thriller

 ‘The Courier’ review: Benedict Cumberbatch is the highlight of Cold-War era thriller

Dominic Cooke’s espionage drama is available on BookMyShow Stream.

Scroll Staff

Yesterday · 10:30 am

‘The Courier’ review: Benedict Cumberbatch is the highlight of Cold-War era thriller

Merab Ninidze and Benedict Cumberbatch in The Courier (2020) | 42/FilmNation Entertainment/SunnyMarch

The Courier is based on real-life events that took place in the 1960s but continue to be relevant. The tense dance between the United States and Russia we are still witnessing has its roots in the Cold War, during which the US and the former Soviet Union came close to using bombing each other with nuclear weapons. Dominic Cooke’s movie, which is out on BookMyShow Stream, tells the story of two people who reportedly played a role in preventing Armageddon.

In 1960, British businessman Greville Wynne’s smart salesmanship brings him to the attention of his country’s secret service. He is recruited to travel to Moscow under the guise of sealing commercial deals and contact a high-ranking Soviet official who wants to defect to the West. Oleg Penkovsky (Merab Ninidze) has access to the Soviet Union’s nuclear plans, which he offers to American agent Emily (Rachel Brosnahan) in return for safe passage.

A bond develops between Greville (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Oleg, forged over visits to the Bolshoi Theatre and a shared understanding of the importance of their mission. Tom O’Connor’s screenplay will have us believe that Oleg and Greville were instrumental in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, during which America and the Soviet Union came close to nuking each other.


However, the movie doesn’t work hard enough to convince us that a self-declared British amateur and a well-meaning Soviet bureaucrat were all that stood between world peace and wholesale destruction.


The mostly unsmiling Russians are reliable villains, but British intelligence doesn’t fare any better, the movie suggests. Greville’s handlers match their Soviet counterparts in coldness and cruelty. Indeed, the 111-minute movie actually begins when Greville finds himself living his worst nightmare, far away from his wife and son and in danger of being forgotten.


Solidly and well-intended but unwilling to push its themes to their logical end, The Courier benefits from its lead actors. Benedict Cumberbatch, bulked-up, moustachioed and jangly-nerved, is the main selling point here.

The schematic script is equally elevated by cinematographer Sean Bobbitt’s frigid tones and long shots, which are filled with foreboding and forewarning. Bobbitt’s lighting is especially lovely in a scene in which Greville and Oleg communicate in whispers in a bugged room with the radio on.

Thursday, 20 May 2021

The masterpiece that killed George Orwell (1984)

The masterpiece that killed George Orwell

George Orwell 

The Observer

In 1946 Observer editor David Astor lent George Orwell a remote Scottish farmhouse in which to write his new book, Nineteen Eighty-Four. It became one of the most significant novels of the 20th century. Here, Robert McCrum tells the compelling story of Orwell's torturous stay on the island where the author, close to death and beset by creative demons, was engaged in a feverish race to finish the book

 1984 thought crime? Does it matter that George Orwell pinched the plot?

George Orwell

Robert McCrum

Sun 10 May 2009 

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

Sixty years after the publication of Orwell's masterpiece, Nineteen Eighty-Four, that crystal first line sounds as natural and compelling as ever. But when you see the original manuscript, you find something else: not so much the ringing clarity, more the obsessive rewriting, in different inks, that betrays the extraordinary turmoil behind its composition.

Probably the definitive novel of the 20th century, a story that remains eternally fresh and contemporary, and whose terms such as "Big Brother", "doublethink" and "newspeak" have become part of everyday currency, Nineteen Eighty-Four has been translated into more than 65 languages and sold millions of copies worldwide, giving George Orwell a unique place in world literature.

"Orwellian" is now a universal shorthand for anything repressive or totalitarian, and the story of Winston Smith, an everyman for his times, continues to resonate for readers whose fears for the future are very different from those of an English writer in the mid-1940s.

The circumstances surrounding the writing of Nineteen Eighty-Four make a haunting narrative that helps to explain the bleakness of Orwell's dystopia. Here was an English writer, desperately sick, grappling alone with the demons of his imagination in a bleak Scottish outpost in the desolate aftermath of the second world war. The idea for Nineteen Eighty-Four, alternatively, "The Last Man in Europe", had been incubating in Orwell's mind since the Spanish civil war. His novel, which owes something to Yevgeny Zamyatin's dystopian fiction We, probably began to acquire a definitive shape during 1943-44, around the time he and his wife, Eileen adopted their only son, Richard. Orwell himself claimed that he was partly inspired by the meeting of the Allied leaders at the Tehran Conference of 1944. Isaac Deutscher, an Observer colleague, reported that Orwell was "convinced that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt consciously plotted to divide the world" at Tehran.

Orwell had worked for David Astor's Observer since 1942, first as a book reviewer and later as a correspondent. The editor professed great admiration for Orwell's "absolute straightforwardness, his honesty and his decency", and would be his patron throughout the 1940s. The closeness of their friendship is crucial to the story of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell's creative life had already benefited from his association with the Observer in the writing of Animal Farm. As the war drew to a close, the fruitful interaction of fiction and Sunday journalism would contribute to the much darker and more complex novel he had in mind after that celebrated "fairy tale". It's clear from his Observer book reviews, for example, that he was fascinated by the relationship between morality and language.

There were other influences at work. Soon after Richard was adopted, Orwell's flat was wrecked by a doodlebug. The atmosphere of random terror in the everyday life of wartime London became integral to the mood of the novel-in-progress. Worse was to follow. In March 1945, while on assignment for the Observer in Europe, Orwell received the news that his wife, Eileen, had died under anaesthesia during a routine operation.

Suddenly he was a widower and a single parent, eking out a threadbare life in his Islington lodgings, and working incessantly to dam the flood of remorse and grief at his wife's premature death. In 1945, for instanc e, he wrote almost 110,000 words for various publications, including 15 book reviews for the Observer.

Now Astor stepped in. His family owned an estate on the remote Scottish island of Jura, next to Islay. There was a house, Barnhill, seven miles outside Ardlussa at the remote northern tip of this rocky finger of heather in the Inner Hebrides. Initially, Astor offered it to Orwell for a holiday. Speaking to the Observer last week, Richard Blair says he believes, from family legend, that Astor was taken aback by the enthusiasm of Orwell's response.

In May 1946 Orwell, still picking up the shattered pieces of his life, took the train for the long and arduous journey to Jura. He told his friend Arthur Koestler that it was "almost like stocking up ship for an arctic voyage".

It was a risky move; Orwell was not in good health. The winter of 1946-47 was one of the coldest of the century. Postwar Britain was bleaker even than wartime, and he had always suffered from a bad chest. At least, cut off from the irritations of literary London, he was free to grapple unencumbered with the new novel. "Smothered under journalism," as he put it, he told one friend, "I have become more and more like a sucked orange."

Ironically, part of Orwell's difficulties derived from the success of Animal Farm. After years of neglect and indifference the world was waking up to his genius. "Everyone keeps coming at me," he complained to Koestler, "wanting me to lecture, to write commissioned booklets, to join this and that, etc - you don't know how I pine to be free of it all and have time to think again."

On Jura he would be liberated from these distractions but the promise of creative freedom on an island in the Hebrides came with its own price. Years before, in the essay "Why I Write", he had described the struggle to complete a book: "Writing a book is a horrible, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist or [sic] understand. For all one knows that demon is the same instinct that makes a baby squall for attention. And yet it is also true that one can write nothing readable unless one constantly struggles to efface one's personality." Then that famous Orwellian coda. "Good prose is like a window pane."

From the spring of 1947 to his death in 1950 Orwell would re-enact every aspect of this struggle in the most painful way imaginable. Privately, perhaps, he relished the overlap between theory and practice. He had always thrived on self-inflicted adversity.

At first, after "a quite unendurable winter", he revelled in the isolation and wild beauty of Jura. "I am struggling with this book," he wrote to his agent, "which I may finish by the end of the year - at any rate I shall have broken the back by then so long as I keep well and keep off journalistic work until the autumn."

Barnhill, overlooking the sea at the top of a potholed track, was not large, with four small bedrooms above a spacious kitchen. Life was simple, even primitive. There was no electricity. Orwell used Calor gas to cook and to heat water. Storm lanterns burned paraffin. In the evenings he also burned peat. He was still chain-smoking black shag tobacco in roll-up cigarettes: the fug in the house was cosy but not healthy. A battery radio was the only connection with the outside world.

Orwell, a gentle, unworldly sort of man, arrived with just a camp bed, a table, a couple of chairs and a few pots and pans. It was a spartan existence but supplied the conditions under which he liked to work. He is remembered here as a spectre in the mist, a gaunt figure in oilskins.

The locals knew him by his real name of Eric Blair, a tall, cadaverous, sad-looking man worrying about how he would cope on his own. The solution, when he was joined by baby Richard and his nanny, was to recruit his highly competent sister, Avril. Richard Blair remembers that his father "could not have done it without Avril. She was an excellent cook, and very practical. None of the accounts of my father's time on Jura recognise how essential she was."

Once his new regime was settled, Orwell could finally make a start on the book. At the end of May 1947 he told his publisher, Fred Warburg: "I think I must have written nearly a third of the rough draft. I have not got as far as I had hoped to do by this time because I really have been in most wretched health this year ever since about January (my chest as usual) and can't quite shake it off."

Mindful of his publisher's impatience for the new novel, Orwell added: "Of course the rough draft is always a ghastly mess bearing little relation to the finished result, but all the same it is the main part of the job." Still, he pressed on, and at the end of July was predicting a completed "rough draft" by October. After that, he said, he would need another six months to polish up the text for publication. But then, disaster.

Part of the pleasure of life on Jura was that he and his young son could enjoy the outdoor life together, go fishing, explore the island, and potter about in boats. In August, during a spell of lovely summer weather, Orwell, Avril, Richard and some friends, returning from a hike up the coast in a small motor boat, were nearly drowned in the infamous Corryvreckan whirlpool.

Richard Blair remembers being "bloody cold" in the freezing water, and Orwell, whose constant coughing worried his friends, did his lungs no favours. Within two months he was seriously ill. Typically, his account to David Astor of this narrow escape was laconic, even nonchalant.

The long struggle with "The Last Man in Europe" continued. In late October 1947, oppressed with "wretched health", Orwell recognised that his novel was still "a most dreadful mess and about two-thirds of it will have to be retyped entirely".

He was working at a feverish pace. Visitors to Barnhill recall the sound of his typewriter pounding away upstairs in his bedroom. Then, in November, tended by the faithful Avril, he collapsed with "inflammation of the lungs" and told Koestler that he was "very ill in bed". Just before Christmas, in a letter to an Observer colleague, he broke the news he had always dreaded. Finally he had been diagnosed with TB.

A few days later, writing to Astor from Hairmyres hospital, East Kilbride, Lanarkshire, he admitted: "I still feel deadly sick," and conceded that, when illness struck after the Corryvreckan whirlpool incident, "like a fool I decided not to go to a doctor - I wanted to get on with the book I was writing." In 1947 there was no cure for TB - doctors prescribed fresh air and a regular diet - but there was a new, experimental drug on the market, streptomycin. Astor arranged for a shipment to Hairmyres from the US.

Richard Blair believes that his father was given excessive doses of the new wonder drug. The side effects were horrific (throat ulcers, blisters in the mouth, hair loss, peeling skin and the disintegration of toe and fingernails) but in March 1948, after a three-month course, the TB symptoms had disappeared. "It's all over now, and evidently the drug has done its stuff," Orwell told his publisher. "It's rather like sinking the ship to get rid of the rats, but worth it if it works."

As he prepared to leave hospital Orwell received the letter from his publisher which, in hindsight, would be another nail in his coffin. "It really is rather important," wrote Warburg to his star author, "from the point of view of your literary career to get it [the new novel] by the end of the year and indeed earlier if possible."

Just when he should have been convalescing Orwell was back at Barnhill, deep into the revision of his manuscript, promising Warburg to deliver it in "early December", and coping with "filthy weather" on autumnal Jura. Early in October he confided to Astor: "I have got so used to writing in bed that I think I prefer it, though of course it's awkward to type there. I am just struggling with the last stages of this bloody book [which is] about the possible state of affairs if the atomic war isn't conclusive."

This is one of Orwell's exceedingly rare references to the theme of his book. He believed, as many writers do, that it was bad luck to discuss work-in-progress. Later, to Anthony Powell, he described it as "a Utopia written in the form of a novel". The typing of the fair copy of "The Last Man in Europe" became another dimension of Orwell's battle with his book. The more he revised his "unbelievably bad" manuscript the more it became a document only he could read and interpret. It was, he told his agent, "extremely long, even 125,000 words". With characteristic candour, he noted: "I am not pleased with the book but I am not absolutely dissatisfied... I think it is a good idea but the execution would have been better if I had not written it under the influence of TB."

And he was still undecided about the title: "I am inclined to call it NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR or THE LAST MAN IN EUROPE," he wrote, "but I might just possibly think of something else in the next week or two." By the end of October Orwell believed he was done. Now he just needed a stenographer to help make sense of it all.

It was a desperate race against time. Orwell's health was deteriorating, the "unbelievably bad" manuscript needed retyping, and the December deadline was looming. Warburg promised to help, and so did Orwell's agent. At cross-purposes over possible typists, they somehow contrived to make a bad situation infinitely worse. Orwell, feeling beyond help, followed his ex-public schoolboy's instincts: he would go it alone.

By mid-November, too weak to walk, he retired to bed to tackle "the grisly job" of typing the book on his "decrepit typewriter" by himself. Sustained by endless roll-ups, pots of coffee, strong tea and the warmth of his paraffin heater, with gales buffeting Barnhill, night and day, he struggled on. By 30 November 1948 it was virtually done.

Now Orwell, the old campaigner, protested to his agent that "it really wasn't worth all this fuss. It's merely that, as it tires me to sit upright for any length of time, I can't type very neatly and can't do many pages a day." Besides, he added, it was "wonderful" what mistakes a professional typist could make, and "in this book there is the difficulty that it contains a lot of neologisms".

The typescript of George Orwell's latest novel reached London in mid December, as promised. Warburg recognised its qualities at once ("amongst the most terrifying books I have ever read") and so did his colleagues. An in-house memo noted "if we can't sell 15 to 20 thousand copies we ought to be shot".

By now Orwell had left Jura and checked into a TB sanitorium high in the Cotswolds. "I ought to have done this two months ago," he told Astor, "but I wanted to get that bloody book finished." Once again Astor stepped in to monitor his friend's treatment but Orwell's specialist was privately pessimistic.

As word of Nineteen Eighty-Four began to circulate, Astor's journalistic instincts kicked in and he began to plan an Observer Profile, a significant accolade but an idea that Orwell contemplated "with a certain alarm". As spring came he was "having haemoptyses" (spitting blood) and "feeling ghastly most of the time" but was able to involve himself in the pre-publication rituals of the novel, registering "quite good notices" with satisfaction. He joked to Astor that it wouldn't surprise him "if you had to change that profile into an obituary".

Nineteen Eighty-Four was published on 8 June 1949 (five days later in the US) and was almost universally recognised as a masterpiece, even by Winston Churchill, who told his doctor that he had read it twice. Orwell's health continued to decline. In October 1949, in his room at University College hospital, he married Sonia Brownell, with David Astor as best man. It was a fleeting moment of happiness; he lingered into the new year of 1950. In the small hours of 21 January he suffered a massive haemorrhage in hospital and died alone.

The news was broadcast on the BBC the next morning. Avril Blair and her nephew, still up on Jura, heard the report on the little battery radio in Barnhill. Richard Blair does not recall whether the day was bright or cold but remembers the shock of the news: his father was dead, aged 46.

David Astor arranged for Orwell's burial in the churchyard at Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire. He lies there now, as Eric Blair, between HH Asquith and a local family of Gypsies.

Why '1984'?

Orwell's title remains a mystery. Some say he was alluding to the centenary of the Fabian Society, founded in 1884. Others suggest a nod to Jack London's novel The Iron Heel (in which a political movement comes to power in 1984), or perhaps to one of his favourite writer GK Chesterton's story, "The Napoleon of Notting Hill", which is set in 1984.

In his edition of the Collected Works (20 volumes), Peter Davison notes that Orwell's American publisher claimed that the title derived from reversing the date, 1948, though there's no documentary evidence for this. Davison also argues that the date 1984 is linked to the year of Richard Blair's birth, 1944, and notes that in the manuscript of the novel, the narrative occurs, successively, in 1980, 1982 and finally, 1984. There's no mystery about the decision to abandon "The Last Man in Europe". Orwell himself was always unsure of it. It was his publisher, Fred Warburg who suggested that Nineteen Eighty-Four was a more commercial title.

Freedom of speech: How '1984' has entrusted our culture

The effect of Nineteen Eighty-Four on our cultural and linguistic landscape has not been limited to either the film adaptation starring John Hurt and Richard Burton, with its Nazi-esque rallies and chilling soundtrack, nor the earlier one with Michael Redgrave and Edmond O'Brien.

It is likely, however, that many people watching the Big Brother series on television (in the UK, let alone in Angola, Oman or Sweden, or any of the other countries whose TV networks broadcast programmes in the same format) have no idea where the title comes from or that Big Brother himself, whose role in the reality show is mostly to keep the peace between scrapping, swearing contestants like a wise uncle, is not so benign in his original incarnation.

Apart from pop-culture renditions of some of the novel's themes, aspects of its language have been leapt upon by libertarians to describe the curtailment of freedom in the real world by politicians and officials - alarmingly, nowhere and never more often than in contemporary Britain.

Orwellian

George owes his own adjective to this book alone and his idea that wellbeing is crushed by restrictive, authoritarian and untruthful government.

Big Brother (is watching you)

A term in common usage for a scarily omniscient ruler long before the worldwide smash-hit reality-TV show was even a twinkle in its producers' eyes. The irony of societal hounding of Big Brother contestants would not have been lost on George Orwell.

Room 101

Some hotels have refused to call a guest bedroom number 101 - rather like those tower blocks that don't have a 13th floor - thanks to the ingenious Orwellian concept of a room that contains whatever its occupant finds most impossible to endure. Like Big Brother, this has spawned a modern TV show: in this case, celebrities are invited to name the people or objects they hate most in the world.

Thought Police

An accusation often levelled at the current government by those who like it least is that they are trying to tell us what we can and cannot think is right and wrong. People who believe that there are correct ways to think find themselves named after Orwell's enforcement brigade.

Thoughtcrime

See "Thought Police" above. The act or fact of transgressing enforced wisdom.

Newspeak

For Orwell, freedom of expression was not just about freedom of thought but also linguistic freedom. This term, denoting the narrow and diminishing official vocabulary, has been used ever since to denote jargon currently in vogue with those in power.

Doublethink

Hypocrisy, but with a twist. Rather than choosing to disregard a contradiction in your opinion, if you are doublethinking, you are deliberately forgetting that the contradiction is there. This subtlety is mostly overlooked by people using the accusation of "doublethink" when trying to accuse an adversary of being hypocritical - but it is a very popular word with people who like a good debate along with their pints in the pub. Oliver Marre … as it’s our birthday month, we have a small favour to ask. It’s not every day you turn 200. As you’re joining us today from India, we hope you’ll help us celebrate two centuries of independent, high-impact Guardian journalism. Since 1821, tens of millions have placed their trust in our quality reporting, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. And this is just the beginning. 





Thanks to funding from more than 1.5 million Guardian supporters in 180 countries, we’ve remained open to all, and fiercely independent. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we set our own agenda and provide truth-seeking journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favour.

Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.

Over the past 200 years, we have reported on the most critical issues and events of the day, and published countless exclusives that have held the powerful to account and exposed incompetence, injustice and impropriety. From Windrush to Wikileaks, Snowden to Cambridge Analytica, and from the climate crisis to racial discrimination, our journalists investigate wrongdoing in the hope that revealing it will help put it right.

If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future.


George Orwell's book "1984" is a dystopian novel published on 8 June 1949, portraying a totalitarian society ruled by a tyrannical government led by the Party and its leader, Big Brother. The story follows the protagonist, Winston Smith, and his struggles against the oppressive regime.

8 June 1949

Characters:

Winston Smith: The central character of the novel, Winston works at the Ministry of Truth, altering historical records to match the Party's propaganda. He harbors rebellious thoughts against the Party and Big Brother and longs for freedom and truth.

Julia: Winston's love interest, Julia, is a young woman who works at the Ministry of Truth. Initially portrayed as a fervent supporter of the Party, she reveals herself to be rebellious and joins Winston in his quest for freedom.

O'Brien: A high-ranking member of the Inner Party, O'Brien appears to be a friend and ally to Winston and Julia in their resistance against the Party. However, he later reveals himself as an agent of the Party, using deceit to entrap Winston.

Big Brother: The enigmatic and omnipresent figurehead of the Party, Big Brother symbolizes the totalitarian government's control over its citizens. The Party uses his image and persona to instill fear and loyalty among the populace.

Plot Summary:

Set in a dystopian future, the novel portrays a world dominated by perpetual war, surveillance, manipulation, and suppression of individuality. Winston Smith, disillusioned with the oppressive regime of the Party and its constant rewriting of history, secretly rebels against its control.

Driven by a longing for truth and freedom, Winston begins a forbidden love affair with Julia. They engage in clandestine meetings and attempt to resist the Party's control through their relationship.

Winston's skepticism towards the Party's absolute power grows as he discovers a secret resistance movement. However, their rebellion is eventually discovered, and they are captured by the Thought Police, led by O'Brien. Under torture and brainwashing in the Ministry of Love, Winston is coerced into betraying Julia and confessing his rebellious thoughts.

Ultimately, Winston's spirit is broken, and he succumbs to the indoctrination, ending with him loving Big Brother. The novel ends on a bleak note, highlighting the triumph of totalitarianism over individual freedom and the obliteration of independent thought.

George Orwell's "1984" is a powerful critique of totalitarianism, surveillance, and the manipulation of truth, presenting a chilling warning about the dangers of authoritarianism and the erosion of personal freedoms.


For an overall understanding can you re-arrange the George Orwell’s novel ‘1984’ in the 15 beats of Blake Snyder?

Certainly! Here's a re-arrangement of George Orwell's novel "1984" into the 15 beats of Blake Snyder's story structure:

Opening Image :

Introduce Winston Smith, the protagonist, living in a dystopian society under the oppressive rule of the Party. The bleak and controlled environment sets the tone for the story.

Theme Stated:

Themes of surveillance, manipulation of truth, and totalitarian control are subtly introduced through the Party's slogans and propaganda.

Set-Up:

Establish Winston's life as a Party member, his job at the Ministry of Truth, his dissatisfaction with the regime, and his secret rebellious thoughts against Big Brother.

Catalyst:

Winston begins a forbidden love affair with Julia, an act of rebellion against the strict societal rules imposed by the Party.

Debate:

Winston grapples with the risks of rebelling against the Party and fears of being caught. He contemplates the consequences of his actions.

Break into Two:

Winston commits to his rebellion and starts writing a diary, documenting his thoughts against the Party, signifying a departure from his compliant past.

B Story:

Winston's interactions with O'Brien, an Inner Party member, and their ambiguous relationship hint at a potential ally or adversary.

Fun and Games:

Winston and Julia enjoy moments of freedom and love in their secret hideaway, away from the watchful eyes of the Party.

Midpoint:

Winston and Julia are captured by the Thought Police, exposing their affair and rebellion, marking a significant turning point in the story.

Bad Guys Close In:

Winston faces brutal interrogation and torture at the Ministry of Love, where O'Brien reveals himself as an agent of the Party, shattering Winston's trust.

All Is Lost:

Winston's spirit is broken through torture and brainwashing. He betrays Julia and embraces the Party's ideology, relinquishing his rebellious thoughts.

Dark Night of the Soul:

Winston reflects on his defeat and fully submits to the Party's control, losing all hope for freedom and individuality.

Break into Three:

Winston's acceptance of Big Brother as his savior marks a decisive turning point, symbolizing his complete indoctrination.

Finale:

Winston's final transformation is solidified as he fervently loves Big Brother, embracing the Party's doctrine entirely, and erasing all dissent.

Final Image:

Winston sits at a cafe, having fully assimilated into the Party's propaganda, representing the complete triumph of totalitarianism over individual freedom.

This re-arrangement illustrates how George Orwell's "1984" aligns with the beats of Blake Snyder's story structure, showcasing the progression of Winston's journey in a dystopian society ruled by a tyrannical government.


Saturday, 13 June 2020

In My Blood It Runs

In My Blood It Runs’ Review: ‘I Want to Be an Aborigine’
In plain vérité style, the documentary follows an Arrernte Aboriginal family in Alice Springs, Australia.


Dujuan in “In My Blood It Runs.”
Dujuan in “In My Blood It Runs.”Credit...Sentient.Art.Film
Teo Bugbee
By Teo Bugbee
June 11, 2020

In My Blood It Runs NYT Critic's Pick Directed by Maya Newell Documentary, Biography, History1h 30m
FIND TICKETS
When you purchase a ticket for an independently reviewed film through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.

Colonialism is a war that began hundreds of years ago and never ended. Its modern tactics and its weapons are noted with precision in the ferocious documentary, “In My Blood It Runs.”

The film follows an Arrernte Aboriginal family in Alice Springs, Australia, focusing on Dujuan, a 10-year-old boy, and his mother Megan, as they navigate his education. In plain vérité style, the documentary exposes how language and school are corrupted to become bludgeons for the system built by settlers.

At home, Dujuan is a gifted healer who speaks three languages, and he is a gentle comfort to his mother. But at school, his teachers are white, and they mock Aboriginal spiritual beliefs while teaching a whitewashed version of colonial history. Dujuan is disengaged and angry, and his grades, attendance and behavior suffer. Megan’s fear is that Dujuan could be taken from her and placed in juvenile detention, and as Dujuan’s aunt warns him, if he goes to detention, he’ll either leave it for jail or a coffin.

Would you like recommendations for more stories like this?

Yes
The director Maya Newell gains access to both worlds that Dujuan traverses — home and school — and the trust that she seems to have built with all participants is vital to the success of this film. In both settings, her subjects rarely acknowledge the camera directly. She captures natural behavior, whether she observes care or cruelty. Voices rarely raise, but the film still vibrates with fury.

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story

In the final minutes, Dujuan is given an opportunity to express what would satisfy him, which he does in language simple enough that even his teachers should be able to understand:

“Leave black kids alone.”

“Stop killing Aboriginal people.”

“I want to be an Aborigine.”

In My Blood It Runs
Not rated. Running time: 1 hour 24 minutes. Watch on The Future of Film Is Female.




Wednesday, 3 June 2020

Types of Movies

Types of Movies 

Action
Adventure
Comedy
Crime/Gangster
Drama
Epics/Historical
Horror
Musicals/Dance
Sci-Fi
War
Westerns

Action
Adult
Adventure
Animation / Anime
Biopic
Childrens
Comedy
Crime / detective /spy
Documentary
Drama
Horror
Family
Fantasy
Historical
Medical
Musical
Paranormal
Romance
Sport
Science fiction
Talk Show
Thriller / Suspense
War
Western



The Seven Basic Plots
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
‹ The template Infobox book is being considered for merging. ›
The Seven Basic Plots
The Seven Basic Plots, book cover.png
Author Christopher Booker
Language English
Published 2004
Pages 736
Preceded by The Great Deception 
Followed by Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming 
The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories is a 2004 book by Christopher Booker containing a Jung-influenced analysis of stories and their psychological meaning. Booker worked on the book for thirty-four years.[1]


Contents
1 Summary
1.1 The meta-plot
1.2 The plots
1.2.1 Overcoming the Monster
1.2.2 Rags to Riches
1.2.3 The Quest
1.2.4 Voyage and Return
1.2.5 Comedy
1.2.6 Tragedy
1.2.7 Rebirth
1.3 The Rule of Three
2 Precursors
3 Reception
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
Summary
The meta-plot
The meta-plot begins with the anticipation stage, in which the hero is called to the adventure to come. This is followed by a dream stage, in which the adventure begins, the hero has some success, and has an illusion of invincibility. However, this is then followed by a frustration stage, in which the hero has his first confrontation with the enemy, and the illusion of invincibility is lost. This worsens in the nightmare stage, which is the climax of the plot, where hope is apparently lost. Finally, in the resolution, the hero overcomes his burden against the odds.[2]

The key thesis of the book: "However many characters may appear in a story, its real concern is with just one: its hero. It is the one whose fate we identify with, as we see them gradually developing towards that state of self-realization which marks the end of the story. Ultimately it is in relation to this central figure that all other characters in a story take on their significance. What each of the other characters represents is really only some aspect of the inner state of the hero himself."

The plots
Overcoming the Monster
Definition: The protagonist sets out to defeat an antagonistic force (often evil) which threatens the protagonist and/or protagonist's homeland.

Examples: Perseus, Theseus, Beowulf, Dracula, The War of the Worlds, Nicholas Nickleby, The Guns of Navarone, Seven Samurai (and its Western remake The Magnificent Seven), James Bond, Star Wars.[2]

Rags to Riches
Definition: The poor protagonist acquires power, wealth, and/or a mate, loses it all and gains it back, growing as a person as a result.

Examples: Cinderella, Aladdin, Jane Eyre, A Little Princess, Great Expectations, David Copperfield, The Prince and the Pauper, Brewster's Millions.[2]

The Quest
Definition: The protagonist and companions set out to acquire an important object or to get to a location. They face temptations and other obstacles along the way.

Examples: The Odyssey, The Pilgrim's Progress, The Lord Of The Rings, King Solomon's Mines, Six of Crows, Watership Down, Lightning Thief, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Voyage and Return
Definition: The protagonist goes to a strange land and, after overcoming the threats it poses or learning important lessons unique to that location, they return with experience.

Examples: Ramayana, Alice in Wonderland, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Orpheus, The Time Machine, Peter Rabbit, The Hobbit, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, Brideshead Revisited, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Gone with the Wind, The Third Man, The Lion King, Back to the Future.[2]

Comedy
Definition: Light and humorous character with a happy or cheerful ending; a dramatic work in which the central motif is the triumph over adverse circumstance, resulting in a successful or happy conclusion.[3] Booker stresses that comedy is more than humor. It refers to a pattern where the conflict becomes more and more confusing, but is at last made plain in a single clarifying event. The majority of romance films fall into this category.

Examples: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, Bridget Jones's Diary, Music and Lyrics, Sliding Doors, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Big Lebowski.

Tragedy
Definition: The protagonist is a hero with a major character flaw or great mistake which is ultimately their undoing. Their unfortunate end evokes pity at their folly and the fall of a fundamentally good character.

Examples: Macbeth, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Carmen, Bonnie and Clyde, Jules et Jim, Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, John Dillinger, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Citizen Kane.[2]

Rebirth
Definition: An event forces the main character to change their ways and often become a better individual.

Examples: Pride and Prejudice, The Frog Prince, Beauty and the Beast, The Snow Queen, A Christmas Carol, The Secret Garden, Peer Gynt, Groundhog Day.[2]

The Rule of Three
Main article: Rule of three (writing)
"Again and again, things appear in threes . . ." There is rising tension and the third event becomes "the final trigger for something important to happen". We are accustomed to this pattern from childhood stories such as Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood. In adult stories, three can convey the gradual working out of a process that leads to transformation. This transformation can be downwards as well as upwards. Booker asserts that the Rule of Three is expressed in four ways:

The simple, or cumulative three, for example, Cinderella's three visits to the ball.
The ascending three, where each event is of more significance than the preceding, for example, the hero must win first bronze, then silver, then gold objects.
The contrasting three, where only the third has positive value, for example, The Three Little Pigs, two of whose houses are blown down by the Big Bad Wolf.
The final or dialectical form of three, where, as with Goldilocks and her bowls of porridge, the first is wrong in one way, the second in an opposite way, and the third is "just right". [4]
Precursors
William Foster-Harris' The Basic Patterns of Plot sets out a theory of three basic patterns of plot.[5]
Ronald B. Tobias set out a twenty-plot theory in his 20 Master Plots.[5]
Georges Polti's The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations.[5]
Several of these plots can also be seen as reworkings of Joseph Campbell's work on the quest and return in The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
Reception
Scholars and journalists have had mixed responses to The Seven Basic Plots. Some have celebrated the book's audacity and breadth. The author and essayist Fay Weldon, for example, wrote the following (which is quoted on the front cover of the book): "This is the most extraordinary, exhilarating book. It always seemed to me that 'the story' was God's way of giving meaning to crude creation. Booker now interprets the mind of God, and analyses not just the novel – which will never to me be quite the same again – but puts the narrative of contemporary human affairs into a new perspective. If it took its author a lifetime to write, one can only feel gratitude that he did it."[6] Beryl Bainbridge, Richard Adams, Ronald Harwood, and John Bayley also spoke positively of the work, while philosopher Roger Scruton described it as a "brilliant summary of story-telling".[7]

Others have dismissed the book, criticizing especially Booker's normative conclusions. Novelist and literary critic Adam Mars-Jones, for instance, wrote, "He sets up criteria for art, and ends up condemning Rigoletto, The Cherry Orchard, Wagner, Proust, Joyce, Kafka and Lawrence—the list goes on—while praising Crocodile Dundee, E.T. and Terminator 2".[8] Similarly, Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times writes, "Mr. Booker evaluates works of art on the basis of how closely they adhere to the archetypes he has so laboriously described; the ones that deviate from those classic patterns are dismissed as flawed or perverse – symptoms of what has gone wrong with modern art and the modern world."[