Folly of the Faithful Canine

To those who haven’t read it, here’s a detail not well known:
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, old Victor worked alone.
He had no lab assistant till the first recorded play,
Presumption, which I doubt is still performed a lot today.
The bumbling servant there was Fritz, who later would appear
Within the film of ’31. To add to viewers’ fear,
He had advanced kyphosis like the dude at Notre Dame.
Dwight Frye, who also worked that year as Renfield (he’s the bomb),
Became a different henchman in the sequel with the bride.
The next two films, however, let Lugosi come in stride
As Ygor, whose deformity resulted when the town
Had hanged him but messed up at it (why was he still around?).
This Ygor was a blacksmith, not a toady in the least.
Indeed, he took control of the reanimated beast.
The later House of Frankenstein had Daniel take the form,
So Universal Studios made hunchbacked aides the norm.
The first assistant Igor, tho, was Warner Bros.’ doing
In House of Wax, a Frankenstein-free film for 3D viewing.
It wasn’t till Young Frankenstein that hunchback Igor came,
And he pronounced it “eye-gore,” so it wasn’t quite the same
As that which has been used in countless parodies to date.
Who knew that a composite’s role in lore could be so great?

OK, I didn't finish before my birthday, but close enough. After a rather dated novel, I decided to try one published in 2022, albeit set mostly in the 1930s. It's also probably the first book by a non-White author I've read in nearly a year.

( Cut for length )

Now I'm reading a graphic novel, The Metabarons by Alejandro Jodorowsky. It's large but going fast, which is important in the wake of a birthday that put several more books on my shelves.

In 1939, the world-famous statuette
Officially was christened with the “Oscar” sobriquet.
The earliest known mention was in 1933,
But people have conflicting thoughts of how it came to be.
A Bette Davis bio says she nicknamed the award
For Harmon Oscar Nelson, then a husband she adored.
But then there’s an Academy executive director:
When Margaret Herrick saw the statuette, it did affect ‘er.
She said that it reminded her of “Uncle” Oscar Pierce,
Who really was her cousin (was he getting on in years?).
Another naming candidate’s an office secretary,
Called Eleanore Lilleberg, who handled statuary.
Her brother thought of Oscar, a Norwegian army vet
The two knew in Chicago, quite the straight and tall cadet.
Whoever coined the moniker or gave the inspiration,
It’s stuck around since almost the award’s initiation.

A tennis champ named Guy encounters someone on a train,
Named Bruno, who is devious and not entirely sane.
The latter knows the former wants to leave his cheating wife,
But Miriam’s decided to remain with him for life,
So Bruno has a plan: He knocks off Miriam for Guy,
And Guy kills Bruno’s dad. The cops would see no reason why,
So neither of the murderers should even be suspected,
With alibis for deaths of those more blatantly connected.
Guy nervously pretends the scheme amuses him and leaves.
That constitutes a bargain sealed as Bruno misperceives.
Soon Miriam is dead, and Bruno turns the screws on Guy
To take his turn as hit man. Will our hero thus comply?
If not, he risks a frame-up job that’s simple yet compelling.
You’d better learn the ending for yourself, as I’m not telling.

Tim Grierson opens by noting that his title is slightly misleading: He means to convey multiple ways, and they're not comprehensive. Indeed, this is merely a crash course, an appetizer, inviting readers to explore further.

The back of the book almost serves as a table of contents, apart from not listing page numbers. Suffice it to say that there are five main sections -- acting, directing, light and camera, editing, and writing -- with a total of 42 chapters. Each chapter consists of one page explaining the general technique followed by three pages detailing its use in three movies. Apart from titles and relevant credits in sidebars, the text on each page runs only two to four paragraphs of typical length, with one or more stills to fill the space on movie-specific pages.

I'm not surprised to have seen most of the discussed movies already, despite Grierson's effort to vary them. Fortunately, he goes into some I never heard of, and while they tend to have gotten middling receptions, a few seem worth adding to my watch list. And for many that I have seen, I needed his reminders of details, or else he points out something I hadn't noticed in the first place. That's one way to enrich the experience.

While I don't expect to remember much of the trivia (e.g., cinematographer names, director comments), I hope to retain the gist of the industry jargon. Would you know what "golden hour" means? How about the rule of thirds? I may not hope to make a movie someday, but the more I know, the better my assessments should be. Whether it'll improve my reviews is another question.

TIHYMaM is no substitute for a college cinema course. It's not even worthy of a textbook. But it does make for speedier and less dull reading. Check it out if you want a jump start.


I have now picked up City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennett. It looks rather different from the last few fantasies I read.

An American, Rick, in Morocco
Owns a nightclub and gambling den.
He appears to be perfectly neutral,
Till he meets his ex-lover again.

Now her husband, who leads a resistance,
Is pursued by the wicked Third Reich.
Rick’s acquired two letters of transit
That could help them escape if he likes.

Rick’s unwilling at first, as he’s bitter
At the way she walked out of his life.
She explains she had thought herself widowed;
Then she learned that she still was a wife.

Soon her husband requests, for her safety,
That she fly off to Lisbon with Rick.
But our hero is sure she’d regret it,
And that feeling is certain to stick.

When a major arrives to detain them,
There’s a shootout and Rick leaves him dead.
Though the witnessing captain’s corrupted,
He blames “usual suspects” instead.

It’s a bittersweet end to the movie,
As a beautiful friendship begins
But the lovers are parted forever.
(Now we know that the Allied side wins.)

A lot of people spit on the Academy Awards.
The ceremony’s way too long; it’s sure to leave them bored.
It’s not as big on music as the Grammys or the Tonys.
It’s stars applauding stars; you know the room is full of phonies.
The nominees and winners seldom match the people’s choice.
The speeches often grant annoying folks too big a voice.
It’s gotten too political but also pretty stale.
When trying to appeal to younger tastes, it’s bound to fail.
So why do I continue to stay up and watch each year?
It is a big production with a fancy atmosphere.
It feels a bit suspenseful when an envelope’s in hand.
At times, it’s rather fun, and “In Memoriam” is grand.
It’s interesting to see how someone’s looking nowadays
And what their taste in fashion is; some outfits can amaze.
But most of all, I like to learn of films I haven’t seen.
They’re typically worth watching on or off a theater screen.

You see a man on horseback as he rides across the screen.
The land beneath is desert, but the sound—what does it mean?
The trotting should be muffled, so the clopping’s incorrect.
The explanation’s simple: It’s the coconut effect.

That term began in reference to sounding like a horse
By clacking halves of coconuts together. Now, of course,
We use the term more broadly: When a sound that most expect
Is truly unrealistic, that’s the coconut effect.

For instance, when a sword unsheathed from leather makes a zing,
Or when a larger bird makes lots of noise when taking wing,
Or when a fistfight’s loud before a fighter’s even decked,
We know the sound’s been added for the coconut effect.

In fact, the term can be applied to visuals as well
As various events to let the writers show, not tell.
For them, it’s not a flaw; it helps the audience detect
What’s going on. Let’s hear it for the coconut effect!

I hadn't heard of Michael Hauge, but apparently he's an accomplished screenplay consultant to this day, at 71. His last book was published last year. I think this was his first. Anyway, I picked it off the giveaway shelf because of a casual interest in the prospect of screenwriting.

( Cut for length )

My current reading is of Roger Zelazny's Nine Princes in Amber. That too is a used book selected on a whim, albeit from a store.

It’s strange that we have laugh tracks
For nothing but TV
And radio, not movies.
What reason could there be?

I understand it started
With audiences live.
Because of many retakes,
The laughter couldn’t thrive.

But why should films be different?
I guess it’s in the cost,
Which makes them more immersive.
With laughs, that might get lost.

Another question strikes me:
Why tracks for laughs alone
And never screams or crying?
For me, that’s not quite known.

And why’s it so uncommon
For characters to join?
It’s not like every gag is
A football in the groin.

At times it’s hard to fathom
The entertainment field.
That figures: We’re divided
On which moves have appealed.