The ‘Writing Break Blog’ on a New Website

 

Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Uncategorized

I started blogging for the very first time in January 2019. It was on a Sunday afternoon, in Oxford. It was just a few days before starting the Drama Writing course. I remember that I was happy and nervous, at the same time – I’ve always loved writing dialogue and I was finally having the opportunity to learn to write it better. I was curious. I was excited. I couldn’t wait to get started!

I wanted to give my mind a break from this course excitement. And to do a blog was a great idea. In fact, it was an idea that I was having in mind for quite some time, but I never had the time to sit and do it. Maybe, it was then the time to start blogging. I’m happy and honored that the beautiful, historical, and highly academic city of Oxford inspired me to start blogging. 

I knew from the beginning that I wanted a writing blog. I wanted to … practice online writing essays, comments, reviews, and dialogues – categorized as ‘uncategorized’. J It is different to practice online rather than on paper. Only the idea that someone may be reading it and, as a writer, you are more attentive to the style, the word choice, clarity, etc. I loved it! 

Laura Lai's Homepage on https://lauralai.weebly.com/ 

However, the more I was writing, the more I wanted writing and the writer’s information in one place. Please, don't get me wrong! I loved blogging on BlogSpot! I think it’s a great free and user-friendly service. But no matter how much I liked it, it seemed that a website would be better. But what website? It’s obvious that I was looking for something similarly free and user-friendly. And I searched until I found a YouTube tutorial on Weebly.

Last month, I worked on making myself a website to include a Writing Blog. Obviously! I followed the steps, I chose some pictures, I personalized pictures, I posted them, and I waited for October 1^st, 2021 to continue blogging. In order to stress as strongly as I can that this new Writing Blog is a continuation of the Writing Break Blog I saved two movies from the Old Film Reviews: Hitchcock Series to review on the new blog. And it is just last week that I posted the review of the movie Notorious (1946).

In conclusion, I haven’t posted on this blog because I was working on a new website, equally free and user-friendly, to include a blog, too. The new Writing Blog is a continuation of this Writing Break Blog which was a great idea and a great experience born in Oxford.

            Thank you, Google, for this blog app! It was such a lovely experience that I’m already missing. Thank you for offering each blogger the opportunity to have a public platform to express their point of view. I’m committed to continuing my objective approach to the new blog.  In general, I don’t take sides, and I don’t close chapters that were a great experience. I, simply, leave them open. Consequently, I’m not closing this Writing Break Blog either. Maybe a future idea will need its own platform and this old blog will be just perfect. Who knows?!

            Last, but not least, you’re all welcome to visit the new website, comment, and inscribe your email address to be the first to know about book discounts, give away, and the back story of my books! 

The New Writing Blog on https://lauralai.weebly.com/writing-blog

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Spellbound’ (1945)

picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Spellbound

Lead Actors: Ingrid Bergman (Dr. Constance Petersen), Gregory Peck (Dr. Edwardes/John Brown), Michael Chekhov (Dr. Alexander Brulov, ‘Alex’)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novel The House of Dr. Edwardes (1927) by Francis Beeding. 

The movie Spellbound deals with psychoanalysis as its director, Alfred Hitchcock, warns us from the very beginning: ‘the story deals with psychoanalysis, the method by which modern science treats the emotional problems of the sane.’ In comparison to other movies of Hitchcock, Spellbound has also a motto from Shakespeare: ‘The fault…is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’

Despite its psychoanalysis topic, this movie is not a psychoanalysis movie. What I mean is that A. Hitchcock does not apply psychoanalysis to his characters, but the characters deal with a psychoanalysis topic. The movie presents the story of a young psychiatrist, Dr. Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) working at the Green Manor's hospice in Vermont, who met and fell in love with John Brown (Gregory Peck) who pretended to be Dr. Anthony Edwardes. She discovered that John Brown was an impostor comparing his signature ‘Dr. Edwardes’ to the autograph of the real Dr. Edwardes that she had previously received on a limited edition of his psychoanalysis book. Accused of having murdered the real Dr. Edwardes, Constance continued to believe in Brown’s innocence and to help him recover his memory from deep amnesia and overcome his guilt complex. They run away from the police to Dr. Alex Brulov – Constance’s former professor, who had only words of appreciation for her as a professional. Constance even introduced him as her husband, but Alex realized that he was just a patient suffering from amnesia that she was trying to help, and he agreed to help shortly before turning him in to the police.

The Spellbound is another remarkable movie made by A. Hitchcock. It was nominated by the American Film Academy in several categories: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects. Although in a supporting role, Michael Chekhov made a fantastic role as Dr. Brulov. Besides the way he played Dr. Brulov, he also had a few memorable lines such as: ‘The brain of a woman in love operates at the lowest level of its intellect,' or ‘her husband is my husband.' J 

            In the process of recuperating from amnesia, a highly important role was played by dreams – the night dreams of the patients. And in order to successfully reflect this on the screen, Alfred Hitchcock used drawings of Salvador Dali – which from an artistic point of view is both a brilliant and an original idea. Furthermore, it is remarkable the way Hitchcock thought to show the memory recovery process: he used a series of doors getting opened and lights – which from a technical point of view, it was a terrific idea. 

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next great movie made by Alfred Hitchcock! 

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Lifeboat’ (1944)

picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Lifeboat

Lead Actors: Tallulah Bankhead (Connie Porter), William Bendix (Gus Smith), Walter Slezak (Cpt. Willi), Hume Cronyn (Sparks Garrett), Heather Angel (Mrs. Higley)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novella written by John Steinbeck.

Lifeboat[1] is a psychology movie that presents people’s behavior and thinking in a life-threatening circumstance and in a limited space, such as a lifeboat. The movie presents the story of a group of people who survived their ship being torpedoed by the nazis during WWII. And for the pressure on both the mind and the body to be higher – due to limited space and resources – one of those rescued from the ocean was one of the German crew members who torpedoed the ship.

In the lifeboat, there are just a few characters, of different genders, colors, and professional backgrounds. One of the characters is Connie (Tallulah Bankhead) a journalist who first lost her camera, then the tipper, then the suitcase, and in the end, she lost even a golden bracelet with which they tried and even caught a fish. And she laughed about all this. It was like Hitchcock would say that laughter is the best medicine, particularly under such circumstances.

            Another character is ‘captain’ Willi (Walter Slezak), who initially pretended that he did not understand any English, while Connie was translating from German. He was just checking whether the rest of the crew could be trusted. He was a lifesaver when amputating Gus’ leg (William Bendix), but also his executioner when throwing him in the ocean for discovering that he had water to drink, while the others were thirsty. Willi played with Gus’ hallucinating mind, actually encouraging him to go overboard. And as if Hitchcock would try to say that what goes around comes around, captain Willi had a similar end. Following an exchange fire between two ships, another German was saved by the survivors on the lifeboat. And it looked like Hitchcock would tell us that history repeats itself.

Lifeboat is particular not only for a fine presentation of different peoples’ behavior in survival[2] circumstances but also for the way Hitchcock decided to do it. First, he chose very close camera shots – so close shots that the viewer can smell the actors’ breath. J This is hypothetical speaking because nowadays most of us wear masks to protect ourselves from the spread of Covid-19. Second, he chose a dynamic dialogue, with rare moments of silence, and only one healthy laughter – that of Connie, when she lost the bracelet. 

            One such close camera shot is in minute 50, and it focuses on Connie’s face. Basically, the entire screen is her face exposing a natural beauty – a typical beauty for classic black and white movies – where make-up was just a tool to emphasize some face features. Here, Connie used lipstick to keep the focus on her lips, mouth, words, and the entire discussion under the framework of a dynamic dialogue - an original and brilliant idea.

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next review of Hitchcock’s movies! 

---

[1] This is the free version of the movie that I watched on YouTube. The movie can also be found on Amazon.

[2]  I started this Hitchcock series practicing film review writing after having successfully completed the course on Academic and Business Writing (click here to view my final paper film review for the course). But these survivors on this lifeboat reminded me of the course PredictionX: Lost Without Longitude that I completed during this Hitchcock film series (click here to read the course review).

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Suspicion’ (1941)

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Suspicion

Lead Actors: Joan Fontaine (Lina Aysgarth), Cary Grant (John Aysgarth, called Johnnie), Nigel Bruce (Beaky), Sir Cedric Hardwicke (Gen. McLaidlow), Auriol Lee (Isabel Sedbusk).

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novel Before the Fact (1932) by Francis Iles.

The movie Suspicion is a psychological movie. It is the story of Lina (Joan Fontaine), the daughter of Gen. McLaidlow (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) who accidentally met (and liked) John Aysgarth (Cary Grant), called Johnnie. They soon got married and had a long honeymoon trip. Then, Lina started to discover Johnnie’s betting addiction, his debts, the stealing and selling of things from the house. He lost his job and he was not interested in another one, but he tried to establish a real estate company with his friend Becky (Nigel Bruce), who died in Paris in a suspicious way. Lina’s suspicions got higher when Johnnie got interested in crime novels written by the successful writer Isabel Sedbusk (Auriol Lee), particularly in poisons. She suspected that he wanted to kill her.

From an artistic point of view, Hitchcock used the idea of books and words to present this psychological game. He used the scrabble words game to suggest that Lina’s suspicions were about murder – a very original idea to use books, words, and a word game in a movie as a psychological game. Brilliant! J 

            Lina is an intelligent woman reading psychology books. A literate in psychology, Lina had a trained mind. Still, Johnnie succeeded in playing with it. Fed up with Johnnie's lies adapted for each circumstance, she even tried to leave him, not face to face, but through a note (which may suggest that she was still loving him): ‘I’m leaving you. It is very important that we never see each other again. I am sure that you will be able to explain everything very smoothly to yourself as well as to the others. Lina.’ Then, she tore up the note, she stayed, and the viewers get confirmed that she still loved him dearly. 

            The character Lina has a remarkable arch: from the woman who could not wait to be with him, looking for him, calling him, to suspect him of having murdered Becky, to seek distance of fear not to be murdered by him – but always in love with him. My guess is that the reasons why Johnnie could so easily play with her mind were: his ‘smooth way’ of finding a plausible explanation on the spot and her love for him.

From a technical point of view, every scene took place in beautiful sceneries that are splendid even in black and white. They are well-framed by the camera. There are some single shots that were memorable. For example, the scene from the very beginning of the movie that shows Johnnie playing with Lina’s hair and that ends shortly with Lina’s purse. It is suggestive of the story and as strong as the sound of the closing clip of the purse.

As usual, a lovely doggy was not missing from most of the scenes, as in all Hitchcock’s movies. It is also said that Hitchcock appeared in all his movies, but in some – as is the case in Suspicion – I had difficulties in identifying him. I guess the credit for it goes to those who were in charge of the make-up and the costumes. 

The movie Suspicion is a fascinating movie with psychological twists and a great cast. It was a pleasure to watch Cary Grant playing so naturally the role of Johnnie. And Joan Fontaine made such a remarkable role: her thoughts and feelings transcended the screen. Fabulous! No wonder she was awarded an Oscar for this role. 

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next Hitchcock movies! 

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Sabotage’ (1936)

 picture edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Review 

Film’s Title: Sabotage

Lead Actors: Sylvia Sydney (Mrs. Verloc), Oscar Homolka (Mr. Verloc), John Loder (Ted), Desmond Tester (Sylvia’s young brother) 

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

The movie is based on the novel The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad (or as an ebook available for free reading) 

Sabotage is a black-and-white drama (with sound) directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It is the story of a detective, Ted (John Loder) working undercover as a groceries seller to investigate Mr. Verloc (Oscar Homolka) – a cinema owner – on suspicion of involvement in the city black-out and bus bombing.

In order to picture the novel The Secret Agent written in 1907 by J. Conrad, Hitchcock chose to start the movie in the most original way: with the word definition. Therefore, the very first scene of the movie is a dictionary page, which was defining the word ‘sabotage’ as a ‘wilful destruction of buildings or machinery with the object of alarming a group of persons or inspiring public uneasiness.’ This idea of Hitchcock is both original – as I have never seen any other movie opening directly with a dictionary page to emphasize a definition – and cultural.

            Ted’s undercover mission was discovered during a meeting with a group of social agitators, which included also Mr. Verloc. From this moment, the suspense of the movie starts growing. And although one might believe that with the bus bombing the bombing series was over, it was actually followed by a second one, at the cinema.

            Mr. Verloc sent the brother (Desmond Tester) of his wife (Sylvia Sydney) with the tape of the movie Bartholomew the Strangler, which exploded in a bus full of people. Besides the tragedy of the human loss, and that of Mrs. Verloc’s young brother, this particular scene reminds us that at the beginning of the cinema, the movies were taped on an inflammable tape. And for this reason, many movies from the beginning of the cinema are lost - specialists speak of a 90 percent loss from the total of all movies made in that period. It means that great stories are gone, great interpretations, artistic mise-en-scène of different directors, movies that pictured the life, the habits, and the people with the techniques of those times cinema is all gone. People, stories, and movies are gone forever.

         There are two particular scenes that I would like to point out from this movie: the first for its artistic relevance, and the second for its cultural information. The first is the scene at the beginning of the movie when Mr. Verloc came home while the cinema had a blackout and people were asking for their money back. In a complete black-out, Mr. Verloc could not fully rest because he was disturbed by the street light and he covered his face with a newspaper. I found this scene brilliant because, on the one side, people were restless and wanted their money back, while on the other side, Mr. Verloc could not rest in a black-out because of the … street light. Furthermore, the covering of his face with the newspaper is also brilliant because it was in the spirit of the dictionary scene – Mr. Verloc is covering his eyes with the written words of a newspaper. The second scene, I would like to point out, happened ten minutes later and showed a meeting in what we would call nowadays an ‘aquarium’. It was an Aquarium back then, too. It was open to the public, and it was impressive for those times. It helps to realize the development gap between London and the rest of the country, and the rest of the world at that time.

In conclusion, the movie Sabotage is a great drama concentrating on lots of suspense, particularly after the ‘blowing up’ of Ted’s undercover mission, which continues with the blowing-up of the bus and culminates with the blowing-up of the cinema.

Enjoy the movie! J

P.S.: See you in the next review of Alfred Hitchcock’s series! 

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Rebecca’ (1940)

photo edited by Laura Lai 

by Laura Lai/ Review

Film’s Title: Rebecca 

Lead Actors: Laurence Olivier (Maxim de Winter), Joan Fontaine (Mrs. de Winter), Leonard Carey (Ben)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock 

The movie is based on the novel Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. 

Rebecca is a romantic suspense movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock and inspired by the novel of the same name written by D. Du Maurier and published in 1938.

            It is the story of a newlywed couple, Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier) and his wife (Joan Fontaine), fighting with the ghost of Maxim’s first wife, Rebecca. The couple met in the lobby of the Hotel ‘Princess’ in Monte Carlo. They got married and decided to live at Mr. de Winter’s residence at Manderley. The residence was a big stone house, taken care of by several servants, and it kept inside its walls lots of souvenirs difficult to live with. The entire movie spins around the mystery of Rebecca’s death and the investigation of her death once a boat was found with her body inside. Suspicions of murder and claims of suicide make this 2-hour movie captivating. 

This movie is a black-and-white movie. And the love story is about who, meaning Maxim, his second wife – that is only known as Mrs. de Winter in the movie – and the ghost of the first wife, Rebecca. The story is about what, is about when, and how long. When it is about how intense their love is, the movie impresses with its acting and with lines. Joan Fontaine did a marvelous role by playing the second wife of Maxim de Winter. She entered the role of the young, inexperienced, and devoted wife naturally. Fantastic!

In the same line of ideas, the more recent movies that happen to contain a love story put a lot of emphasis on how when intensity or passion needs to be emphasized – and it is, usually, by demolishing the whole room. No, it is not a critique! It is an observation about the movies then and about movies now. Nowadays, it might be more about violence and nudity. Then, it was more about writing words and dialogue exchange. But one thing stayed constant: actors' talent. They are today as talented as before. 

            Similar to most of Hitchcock’s movies, in Rebecca, the viewers came across a dog – Jasper -  and some great shots. I particularly want to stress the dinner scene (min. 34) that starts from the plate and the napkin (with the initials of the first wife as an element between the newlywed), then the attention is directed toward the second wife, then the entire room, including Mr. de Winter and the servants - these are all the current and past characters in Manderley. Then, the next sequence starts with Manderley. It is a scene with no lines that make as one thousand words but backed by a piece of beautiful music. Brilliant! A hilarious scene is the one in which the two got married and forgot the certificate that was thrown at them from the window upstairs. From an artistic point of view, this is a brilliant idea to show how much in love the two were. Last but not least, I want to stress the fantastic secondary role played by Leonard Carey interpreting Ben's character, living in the cottage next to the sea. He does not have many lines in the movie, but his acting was great and his entries wonderful.

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next review of Hitchcock’s film series!   

Old Film Review. Hitchcock Series: ‘Jamaica Inn’ (1939)

picture edited by Laura Lai

 

by Laura Lai/ Review 

Film’s Title: Jamaica Inn

Lead Actors: Charles Laughton (Sir Humphrey Pengallan), Maureen O’Hara (Mary), Robert Newton (James Trehearne), Laslie Banks (Joss), Mary Ney (Patience). 

Director: Alfred Hitchcock 

The movie is based on the novel Jamaica Inn by Daphne Du Maurier.

Jamaica Inn is the story of Pengallan…legend. The action is placed on the cost of Cornwell, at the beginning of the 19^th century. A group of wreckers, thieves, and murderers was luring ships to the rocks of the coast stealing all the goods on the ship. The constant repetition of the wrecks grew suspicion among officials who sent an officer to work undercover – James Trehearne (Robert Newton). He mixed with the gang at Jamaica Inn, led by Joss (Laslie Banks) and his wife, Patience (Mary Ney).

            At the inn arrived the niece of Patience, from her recently deceased sister – Mary (Maureen O’Hara). She was a beautiful young woman, with principles and lots of character. Officer Trehearne was convinced that this gang had an informer that provided precise information on the ships to be lured to their doom on the rocks of the Cornish Coast. And the entire movie is a great story involving Mary’s character, James' undercover operation, and Sir Humphrey's (Charles Laughton) duplicity. Laughton made a fabulous role. Absolutely magnificent!

From a technical point of view, the wrecking scenes are impressive with the 1939 technique movie. Both the images and the sound are clear – and this fascinates me to dig more and find out the way the director did it. In the scene of the dialogue between Sir Humphrey and Joss (min. 38-39) the camera shots are suggestive in determining the hierarchy of the characters. It is usually said that each person has his own shadow. Well, Sir Humphrey was such an important person, that he was depicted with two shadows. J I would not disconsider this little detail because Alfred Hitchcock is a film mastermind for whom, theoretically, each detail matters.

From a cultural point of view, or better said from a linguistic point of view, officer Trehearne’s short speech while he was tied up is memorable. It is a one-two minutes scene in which he made an appeal to the consciousness of Patience to release him. His words are well-chosen and they made her consciousness clash with her devotion to her husband. 

This scene from a 1939 movie reminded me of more recent movies. See, for example, Al Pacino, ‘Inch by Inch’ speech, Any Given Sunday here, or Al Pacino, ‘I’ll Show You Out of Order!’ speech, Scent of a Woman here, and Leonardo di Caprio, The Wolf of Wall Street speech here). 

Enjoy the movie!

P.S.: See you in the next Hitchcock movie review! J