Out and About: San Clemente

A couple of years ago, I spent a magical few days with a friend in San Clemente, a cute little beach town not all that far from where I live. My husband had never visited. I wanted us to spend some time there together, so I planned a day trip. 

Honestly, it's not the most "happening" town around. I did some googling for ideas on what to do and that's how I ended up discovering Casa Romantica. It's the former home of Ole Hanson, the founder of San Clemente, now a museum/art gallery/cultural center/wedding venue. It's easy to find, right on the edge of downtown San Clemente, and it only costs $5/person to visit!

Entryway.

There was a lot to admire at Casa Romantica. I particularly enjoyed the tile work, all done in concrete. Our very informative guide told us how it was made but I've already forgotten:

I also loved the ceilings & fountains:

But let's not forget the views and the gardens:

This is what Ole Hanson saw when he looked out his office
window. It's a wonder he ever got any work done.

San Clemente pier

Sculpture

After finishing our exploration of Casa Romantica, we headed into downtown San Clemente for some food. We ended up at Nick's, which I now see is a very localized chain. Nick's is beautiful, a great deal fancier than most of places we frequent. The drinks were strong & the food was excellent.

I had a Moscow Mule; Dan had a mimosa.

These deep fried, bacon-topped deviled eggs were one of
the most delicious things I've ever had the pleasure to eat.

My chicken pot pie.

After lunch we strolled around downtown, where I picked up some chocolates at Schmid's:

Then we parked in a neighborhood close to the beach & walked the boardwalk down to the San Clemente pier:

Path to the boardwalk.

The boardwalk parallels the train tracks. Both Amtrak
& the local Metrolink run here.

On the pier, a pigeon checks us out hopefully.

Exquisite water color.

After we walked back to the car, we took a quick trip to the local outlet mall. I didn't take any pictures there because we didn't stay long & because I don't think mall pictures are very interesting. We headed home once we left the mall. It was a beautiful day. I'm still in love with San Clemente!

Top 50 Actresses, #12 - Jean Arthur: "The Devil and Miss Jones" (1941)

Movie Stats:
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Sam Wood
Stars - Jean Arthur, Charles Coburn, Spring Byington, Robert Cummings

Plot Summary:
When the employees of a department store he owns begin agitating for unionization, wealthy John P. Merrick (Coburn) goes undercover in the shoe department in order to pinpoint the organizers. Soon, however, he becomes enmeshed in their lives. Arthur co-stars as shoe department employee Mary Jones; Byington as store employee/Mary’s friend Elizabeth Ellis; and Cummings as former store employee/Mary’s boyfriend Joe O’Brien.

Warnings:
Very minor violence.

Bad Stuff:
Once again, I’m not terribly pleased to see a film that includes the message to women: “it’s okay that he lies to you as long as he’s rich (and/or handsome).”

The “reaction scene,” where Mary, Elizabeth, and Joe discover J.P.’s true identity, is so ridiculously over-the-top that it nearly ruined the whole movie for me. It’s probably meant to be funny but it didn’t have me laughing.

At only an hour and a half, it still feels too long.

Good Stuff:
I was very relieved that it went with a father-daughter type relationship between J.P. & Mary, instead pairing J.P. with the much more age appropriate Elizabeth.

I enjoyed its sweetness. Ultimately, this film is about overcoming one’s own biases.

I really liked the score and the costuming.

About the Performance:
Arthur is an actress that I feel rather lukewarm about. I’ve seen a handful of her performances. She hasn’t wowed in any of them. I felt the same way about this one. She’s not bad, but at the end I didn’t have that, “I love her!” feeling I have about the actors I like best. One thing I will say about her is that she definitely isn’t one-note. In this, she’s sweet and bubbly. In Mr. Smith, she’s cynical and brash. In Shane, she’s tough as nails. So I do admire that she had range.

Other performances of Arthur’s I’ve reviewed: Shane; Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; You Can’t Take It with You.

The Verdict:
To be honest, I thought it was pretty simplistic and naive. It’s total fantasy in that no wealthy man would actually do what J.P. does and even if he did, I don’t think he would have the total change of heart that J.P. has. Also, it definitely romanticizes the “common man” and his plight. However, it was nice to watch something light, fun, and good-hearted. It’s a sweet little film. The performances are all satisfactory. I particularly enjoyed Coburn, Byington & S.Z. Sakall (as J.P.’s butler, George). I liked the gentle fun it pokes at the ultra wealthy & its exploration of class issues, even if that exploration was simplistic.

I give it 3.75 stars.

Top 50 Actresses, #13 - Katharine Hepburn: "The Lion in Winter" (1968)

Movie Stats:
Released 1968 (USA)
American & British, in English
Director - Anthony Harvey
Stars - Peter O’Toole, Katharine Hepburn

Plot Summary:
Based on historical events, at Christmas time in 1183, King Henry II (O’Toole) and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine (Hepburn) scheme against one another; each of them wants a different son to inherit the throne upon Henry’s death.

Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore.

Bad Stuff:
All the arguing & scheming gets pretty tedious after a while.

They don’t really talk to one another like I suspect people talked in the 12th century. It’s not like I wanted to listen to a whole bunch of “thou hast forsaken me” or what have you, but I don’t want to hear a bunch of people in medieval garb talk like they’re from the 1960s either.

It’s quite melodramatic at times.

Good Stuff:
The love-hate relationship between Henry and Eleanor is fun to watch in a schadenfreude sort of way.

There’s a lot of delicious verbal sparring.

Loved the costuming and set design.

About the Performance:
I don’t think it’s any great secret that I’m not a fan of K. Hepburn. There’s something very snooty tooty about her that she brought to a lot of her roles (in fact, she played a lot of snooty tooty characters). I find her off-putting and one note. That being said, I thought she was excellent in this. Her character is conniving, vicious, and manipulative, but only because she’s a deeply wounded, lonely creature. Hepburn conveys that very well.

Other performances of Hepburn’s I’ve reviewed: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner; The African Queen; The Philadelphia Story; Bringing Up Baby.

The Verdict:
This film had all the hall marks of a movie I would hate. It’s from the 1960s, stars an actress I don’t like, and covers a topic I have little interest in (old school British royal succession). Surprisingly, however, I thought it wasn’t that bad. While I did find it somewhat tedious/boring, and occasionally melodramatic, it was a lot more interesting than I expected. All of the performances were great (except I didn’t care for Nigel Terry as Prince John). O’Toole & Hepburn were particularly good. I also appreciated that it assumes its audience is intelligent, that we know who these people are and what their history is. My knowledge of this time period is somewhat limited, so it encouraged me to look things up, which I liked.

I give it 3.5 stars.

Music Love: "Doses & Mimosas" by Cherub

*Explicit lyrics warning*

There is literally nothing about Cherub that I should like, particularly when it comes to this song. I don't care for high pitched singing. I'm not into party culture, especially not hard drugs. And this song is so incredibly juvenile (as is the other Cherub song I own, "Heartbreaker").

Yet here we are.

I love this song. I think it's fun. I see it as somewhat tongue-in-cheek. And I have to admit, there's this immature part of me that thoroughly enjoys singing along to the lines, "To all the b!*ch ass hoes that hate me the most, oh yeah, I hate you too. To all the punk as f!*ks that just want to talk s!*t, I hate you too." I can't say that "doses & mimosas, champagne & cocaine help to get me through," but the way they sing those lyrics, I have a good time belting them out alongside.

This certainly isn't the classiest song in my library, but sometimes you just have to let loose & enjoy yourself.

Top 50 Actresses, #14 - Kate Winslet: "The Reader" (2008)

Movie Stats:
Released 2008 (USA)
American & German, in English (minor, non-translated German, Greek & Latin)
Director - Stephen Daldry
Stars - Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross

Plot Summary:
Michael Berg reflects on Hanna Schmitz (Winslet), the older woman with whom he had a sexual relationship as a teenager & who later went on trial for WWII-era war crimes. Fiennes plays Berg as an adult; Kross plays the young Berg.

Warnings:
Full nudity of both men & women; sexy times (most of it would be considered statutory rape in a modern setting).

Bad Stuff:
Kross is the weak link of the cast. I thought he did a fine job as a naive 15-year-old, but later in the film, when he’s college-aged & the script called for heavier, more serious acting, he wasn’t good.

This is nitpicky, but it drove me nuts that this is set in Germany but instead of speaking German they spoke English with German accents. I understand why studios don’t want to release foreign-language films (lots of people don’t like watching subtitles), but these are the kinds of things that disappoint me. If it’s set in a certain country, they should be speaking that country’s language.

[SPOILER]
I don’t think I believe that a person would rather go to jail for life (or potentially be sentenced to death) than admit they can’t read.
[SPOILER]

Good Stuff:
I like how it subtly draws the parallel between Hanna’s actions in the war and her actions with Michael; both are symptoms of her central problem as a person.

Relatedly, I like that Hanna isn’t evil. She’s a bad person but it’s not borne out of any maliciousness. She’s just selfish and lacks the capacity to see how her actions affect other people. I think that’s a lot truer to life than most movie villains.

It’s nice to see a time period of German history that isn’t WWII/The Holocaust portrayed in film.

About the Performance:
I’m a Winslet fan. She’s very good in this. She makes no attempt to make Hanna likable because she’s not. The scene that impressed me most was when Hanna was on trial, where she doesn’t seem to understand that her candor will land her in hot water because while her own actions make sense to her, they seem reprehensible to others. I thought Winslet portrayed Hanna’s confusion and irritation with the proceedings well. She’s one of the most breathtakingly selfish characters I’ve ever seen in film and yet it’s played so well that you don’t truly see it until the end.

Other performances of Winslet’s I’ve reviewed: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Titanic.

The Verdict:
I had a difficult time with this film because of all the statutory rape. Even though I knew that in the 1950s no one would have considered it that & also knew that the actor wasn’t actually that young, it made me very uncomfortable, particularly given the extensive sex scenes. It took me a while to get over it. Once I did, I grew to admire this film. Hanna is exactly the type of adult who would have sex with a 15-year-old because she herself is emotionally immature. No one her own age would put up with her. When, later, you find out what she did during the war, it makes perfect sense. That's just who she is. This is an unpleasant watch. At the same time, it’s sort of fascinating. It’s an intriguing film. I don’t know that I’d ever want to watch it again, but it was good for one time.

I give it 4 stars.

Top 50 Actresses, #15 - Susan Hayward: "I Want to Live!" (1958)

Movie Stats:
Released 1958 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Robert Wise
Stars - Susan Hayward, Simon Oakland

Plot Summary:
Based on a true story, petty crook Barbara Graham (Hayward) finds herself on the path to the gas chamber after she’s accused of participating in a murder. Oakland co-stars as Edward S. Montgomery, a journalist covering Graham’s case.

Warnings:
Violence; very minor gore; very minor blue language; implied sexy times; implied drug use (there is one brief scene where two men smoke what appears to be a marijuana joint but it’s never spoken of).

Bad Stuff:
Hayward’s performance, and the film in general, are occasionally melodramatic.

It’s too long. There are many scenes that could have been tightened.

Good Stuff:
I liked that it subtly explored the idea that—whether or not one believes in Graham’s guilt*—the jury and press viewed her more harshly because she wasn’t a “good” girl. I was frankly surprised to see that sentiment in a film from the 1950s.

Thankfully, it kept the trial portion to a minimum and focused instead on Graham’s life both before and after it. I particularly enjoyed the extensive “death watch” scene. It’s very intense. As someone who’s done a lot of true crime reading, it rang very true-to-life to me.

The jazzy soundtrack is fantastic!

About Performance:
While I did think that Hayward was sometimes too much, overall it was an excellent performance. Barbara Graham is a person who shouldn’t be likable. She’s brash and crass and rude. She’s her own worst enemy. So many times, I wanted to grab and shake her, but that’s only because it takes her far too long to realize just how serious the fix she’s in is. Hayward does a good job of portraying the vulnerability underneath Graham’s hard exterior. I never even heard of her before doing this list. I liked her enough that I would like to see more.

Other performances of Haywards I’ve reviewed: none.

The Verdict:
I expected this to be a solid film & it is. The story is told well, the performances are good, and the score is out of this world. Seriously, I’m not even the biggest fan of 1950s jazz but something about it really fit with the film and gave it extra panache. I don’t have any complaints other than what was posted above. This is probably one of the better films you’ve never seen.

I give it 4.25 stars.


*There are still a lot of questions as to Graham’s involvement in the murder. Depending on which source you read, she was either the killer or she wasn’t even at the murder scene. The film falls on the sympathetic side.

Up with Geography: El Salvador

Country Name:
El Salvador

Capital:
San Salvador

Continent:
North America

Maps:

North American continent. El Salvador
outlined in dark ink.

A close-up of El Salvador & its neighbors.

Neighbors:
Guatemala, Honduras

Water Borders:
Paz River, Lago de Guija, Sumpul River, Lempa River, Torola River, Goascaron River, Pacific Ocean

Total Area:
8,124 square miles

Five Largest Cities:
San Salvador, Soyapango, Santa Ana, San Miguel, Mejicanos

Famous Geographical Point:
San Miguel (volcano)

Famous Person:
José Arturo Castellanos Contreras, army colonel & diplomat who helped save 40,000 people during the Holocaust

Book Set In/About:
Un Dia en la Vida (One Day of Life) by Manilo Argueta

This tale follows one woman's daily life during the Salvadoran Civil War.

Movie Set In/About:
"Return to El Salvador" (2010), directed by Jamie Moffett

17 years after U.N. peace accords ended the civil war, this film documents how the people of El Salvador are living their lives.

Headline of the Day:
"The Impact 200,000 Returning Expats Will Have on El Salvador" in International Banker.

Top 50 Actresses, #16 - Elizabeth Taylor: "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966)

Movie Stats:
Released 1966 (USA)
American, in English (some minor, non-translated Latin & Spanish)
Director - Mike Nichols
Stars - Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal, Sandy Dennis

Plot Summary:
Toxic middle-aged couple George (Burton) & Martha (Taylor) spend an evening tearing one another down, much to the horror of their guests, young couple Nick (Segal) & Honey (Dennis), who get caught up in the drama.

Warnings:
Blue language; violence; heavily implied sexy times.

Bad Stuff:
It’s basically just 2+ hours of people yelling at each other.

I don’t find the premise believable. If I was at someone’s home and they began to repeatedly bicker with & tear down their spouse & call them names, I would leave.

I thought Dennis was terrible. I’m genuinely perplexed by her Oscar win for this performance. My husband watched part of the film with me. At one point, he turned to me and said, “Is she supposed to be mentally disabled?” That’s how strange she was in the role, even before her character got drunk.

Good Stuff:
I really enjoyed the opening scene, where George & Martha are strolling home from a party. It’s visually lovely. That and the soft music lull you into a false sense of security as to what the rest of the film will be like.

Apart from Dennis, the acting is very good.

It does a good job of showing all the small ways—and some of the big ways—a relationship can go terribly, horribly wrong.

About the Performance:
Taylor is great. Most roles I’ve seen her in, she’s dignified, refined, and beautiful. In this, she’s a crass, bitter, awful, shrieking mess of a human being. I absolutely loathed her. And that’s the point. You’re not supposed to like Martha. You’re not really supposed to like any of the main characters, except maybe Honey. At the same time, Taylor gives Martha just enough vulnerability that you can feel a little bit sorry for her. I was duly impressed.

Other performances of Taylor’s I’ve reviewed: Giant; A Place in the Sun.

The Verdict:
This is one of those films that I understand why it’s considered good & why it’s a classic. It’s specifically designed to make you uncomfortable. You’re not supposed to like it in the sense that you’re having a good time during it. You’re supposed to watch it with a wince on your face, feeling grateful that you’re not currently experiencing anything like this. It’s like watching a car crash in slow motion. When it was over, I told my husband, “That movie was awful.” I hated it. And yet, as I’ve taken the time to really think about it while working on this review, I recognize how masterful it was. I’m torn between giving it a rating based on how much I enjoyed it (not at all) and how much I admire it (greatly). But I feel magnanimous, so I’ve decided to give it a good rating. Definitely not a film I’d ever watch again, though.

I give it 4 stars.

Top 50 Actresses, #17 - Judi Dench: "Philomena" (2013)

Movie Stats:
Released 2013 (Italy)
British, American & French, in English
Director - Stephen Frears
Stars - Judi Dench, Steve Coogan

Plot Summary:
Based on a true story, cynical journalist Martin Sexsmith (Coogan) helps elderly Philomena Lee (Dench) search for the son who was taken away from her by a convent when she was a teenager.

Warnings:
Blue language; minor gore.

Bad Stuff:
I don’t find Coogan especially believable in this serious role.

I’m not a fan of big, dramatic confrontation scenes in film, especially when they occur between strangers. For example, the “dogged-journalist-stick-a-foot-in-the-door” scene or the “yell-at-nuns” scene. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t believe that people do those sorts of things in real life, so it tends to take me right out of the movie as I think to myself, “That would never happen. They would call the police!”

Good Stuff:
It shines a spotlight on a topic that is woefully ignored across all media.

Apart from the slight skepticism I’ve thrown in Coogan’s direction, the acting is very good.

I enjoy the friendship that forms between Martin and Philomena.

About the Performance:
Dench is great. Her performance is really what sold the film for me. She’s entirely believable as a woman with a long-ago wound that has never healed. Most of her role calls for her to be understated, but Dench does an excellent job of portraying what’s underneath the “stiff upper lip” exterior. You can feel what she feels, even when she’s not actively expressing it.

Other performances of Dench’s I’ve reviewed: Shakespeare in Love.

The Verdict:
I watched this film on a whim last year. My intention was to watch bits and pieces of it again to “refresh” my memory before writing this review, but when I went to do so, I sadly discovered that it’s no longer available for free on Amazon Prime. So this is all from memory. I absolutely loved this movie. It’s very emotional; I cried like a baby. One of the things I admire most about it is that there’s an obvious direction the Philomena/Martin relationship could have gone (mother/surrogate son) that it didn’t go in. I truly appreciate those rarely portrayed platonic relationships between women and men, especially ones with such a large age gap. It’s nice to see some age diversity in film. I do think that the movie occasionally  gets overdramatic, but for the most part it’s a lovely little story about grief, loss, perseverance, and friendship.

I give it 4.5 stars.

Up with U.S. Geography: Texas

Texas is the third of the eight states I've lived in to make the list! My husband and I spent slightly longer than three years there, split almost evenly between Austin & Dallas.

State Name:
Texas

Capital:
Austin

Date of Entry:
December 29, 1845

Maps:

Map of the USA. Texas outlined in dark ink & with
name written on it.

A close-up of Texas & its neighbors.

Neighbors:
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mexico, New Mexico

Water Borders:
Red River, Sabine River, Gulf of Mexico, Rio Grande

Total Area:
268,581 square miles

Five Largest Cities:
Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth

Famous Geographical Point:
South Padre Island

State Nickname:
The Lone Star State. The Texas flag from the time it was an independent republic, to now, well into statehood, famously features one star.

Famous Person:
Frederick "Tex" Avery, animator, director, cartoonist, and voice actor (best known for Bugs Bunny and co.)

It was hard to choose. So many famous people are from Texas! On the bright side, I now know that Cyd Charisse's real name was Tula Ellice Finklea. I can see the appeal of the stage name.

Book Set In/About:
Texas: A Novel by James A. Michener

This nearly 1500-page behemoth spans four and a half centuries of Texas history, from Spanish conquistadors to modern statehood.

Movie Set In/About:
"Hud" (1963), directed by Martin Ritt

On a failing Texas cattle farm, a father and son are locked in a power struggle.

Headline of the Day:
"Northwest Mall Picked as Houston Station Site for Texas Bullet Train" on KTRK-TV.

Top 50 Actresses, #18 - Marlene Dietrich: "Witness for the Prosecution" (1957)

Movie Stats:
Released 1957 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Billy Wilder
Stars - Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power

Plot Summary:
Recently returned to work after a heart attack, barrister Sir Wilfrid Roberts (Laughton) takes on a criminal case against the wishes of his doctors, that of accused murderer Leonard Vole (Power), whose wife Christine (Dietrich) is playing an angle Roberts doesn’t quite understand.

Warnings:
Sexual harassment; minor violence.

Bad Stuff:
I’m not a big fan of courtroom dramas. I usually find them simultaneously boring and histrionic/overblown.

I didn’t care for the soundtrack. It didn’t fit the film.

Good Stuff:
The acting is out of this world. Everyone is so good that it’s impossible to single any one person out.

I loved the “big twist.” Quite frankly, it makes the film.

I enjoyed that none of the main characters are who they seem to be on the surface. They all have depth that is slowly revealed through the course of the film.

About the Performance:
Dietrich is so good that it’s impossible to understand how good she is until the twist is revealed. For most of the film, I resented her representation. It seemed such a standard, BS portrayal of a German woman in the wake of WWII: the aloof, unfeeling ice queen. Then the twist happened and it was like, “Ohhhh, that’s exactly how I was supposed to feel!” There is no amount of praise I could heap on her that would be enough. This is a truly excellent performance.

Other performances of Dietrich’s I’ve reviewed: Judgment at Nuremberg.

The Verdict:
Truthfully, I spent most of the film feeling so-so about it. I really liked the beginning, which showcases powerhouse performances by Laughton and Power, but then it got to the trial part. As I said above, I don’t really care for courtroom dramas. They often rehash details that were discussed earlier in the film/show/book, hence making them boring, while at the same time featuring a bunch of grandstanding, which doesn’t happen in real-life trials, hence making them both overblown and unrealistic. So I was suffering through that part of the film. And then came the twist and everything clicked into place and I thought to myself, “This is one of the most masterful stories I’ve ever seen.” I was completely snowed; never saw the ending coming, and that’s a rare feat. The trial portion of the film is Dietrich’s time to shine, and shine she does. This is one of the best films I’ve seen in a long time.

I give it 4.5 stars.