Showing posts with label Burt Reynolds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Burt Reynolds. Show all posts

Sunday, January 22, 2023

Great Moments In Fourth Wall Breakage: SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT


Welcome to a new Film Babble Blog series, Great Moments in Fourth Wall Breakage, which will pinpoint those meta moments in movies when a character makes an aside to the audience. I originally presented a Top 10 list of such moments back in 2007 (10 Movie Moments That Broke the Fourth Wall, 8/22/07), and am planning on re-visiting some of those, but I’m kicking off the series with an excellent example of fourth wall breakage that I hadn’t blogged about before.

Former stuntman Hal Needham’s SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT was the second biggest grossing movie of 1977, after STAR WARS. The action comedy, which starred Burt Reynolds as a bootlegger with the nickname of “The Bandit” on an illegal beer run from Texarkana to Atlanta, features a scene around the fifteen mark in which our leading man in his Pontiac Firebird Trans Amis is being chased by a city cop at night.

 

The Bandit eludes the police by pulling his Firebird into a used car lot, then gradually pulling away, as he’s looking to be sure that the cop has left. When Reynolds and the camera line up, he looks right into the frame, and flashes his classic grin.

 

In an interview from a DVD featurette, Reynolds explained, “I pulled in behind the john, and the cop went by. And I pulled ahead a little bit more. Then I looked right in the lens (smiles) and then drove off. And everybody laughed, the crew laughed, everybody laughed, and I backed up because I figured we were going to do another one. Hal said, ‘that’s it.’

 

In the same featurette, Needham said this about the scene: “I don’t think Burt wanted to do it, but he did, and I thought it worked like a charm. You know what he’s doing? He’s saying ‘look at all the fun we’re having. You know?’”

 

Back to Burt: “And I went, ‘boy, you got some cajones, man! I mean, that’s breaking the fourth wall, you know, you gotta know, Hal.

 

Hal went, ‘the what?’ He didn’t know from fourth wall!”


Watch the scene below aptly entitled “The Fourth Wall”:



Stay tuned to this space for more Great Moments in Fourth Wall Breakage.

 

More later…

Monday, May 03, 2021

Was Frank Sinatra’s Cameo In CANNONBALL RUN II Phoned In?


First of all, for those of you unfamiliar with the phrase “phoned in,” it often doesn’t mean that somebody literary phoned in their performance. It’s defined by Wiktionary as “To fulfill a responsibility with a minimum effort rather than the appropriate level of effort.”

So while the Chairman of the Board, Frank Sinatra, did actually appear onscreen in Hal Needham’s 1984 comedy, CANNONBALL II, it’s been long suspected that he shot his two scenes without any interaction with any of the rest of the cast. This theory posited that angles that required his appearance with his co-stars were shot with a double from behind to simulate his being in the same room.


This has never been confirmed, but it’s hard to think otherwise when watching Sinatra’s brief stint in the film. Legendary critic, Roger Ebert, was possibly the first film scribe to question Sinatra’s contribution:

“The clue to CANNONBALL BALL II is in Frank Sinatra’s first scene, but you have to look carefully. The scene starts in Sinatra’s office, and we’re looking over Sinatra’s head at Burt and some other people. At least, it looks like Sinatra’s head, except there’s something a little funny about the ears.

Then we see Sinatra. He talks. We see Reynolds. He talks. And so on, until, if we know something about movie editing techniques, we realize there isn’t a single shot showing Sinatra and Reynolds at the same time. Also, there's something funny about Sinatra’s voice: He doesn't seem to be quite matching the tone of the things said to him.

That's the final tip-off: Sinatra did his entire scene by sitting down at a desk and reading his lines into the camera, and then, on another day, Reynolds and the others looked into the camera and pretended to be looking at him. The over-the-shoulder shots are of a double.”

Ebert went on to even label the scene, “the movie equivalent to phoning it in,” and that “Refusing to appear in a scene with your fellow actors is no worse than agreeing to appear in a scene that nobody has bothered to write.”


Yet, one can make the case for his involvement as Sinatra is featured in promotional pictures for the movie (like the one above), and appears in the end credits blooper reel, though since his blooper is from the office scene described above in which he’s alone at his desk, it doesn’t prove much.

Sinatra appears in one other scene in CANNONBALL RUN 2, where’s he’s driving a 1984 Dodge Daytona alongside a car containing Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr. Again, he’s not in the same shot as his old Rat Pack buddies, so it furthers the idea that he really wasn’t present for his much hyped cameo.


Sadly, except for a voice-only cameo in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT?, this terrible sequel was Sinatra’s final film performance, if you can call it a performance. It was Martin’s last role as well so maybe the Rat Packers picked the right time to get out. Now, I can’t say for sure that Sinatra’s role in CANNONBALL RUN II was phoned in, but it sure looks that way.

The idea that Sinatra may have strategically kept his distance from Burt Reynolds and a should be embarrassed ensemble of B-listers just may be the funniest thing about one of the unfunniest films ever.

More later...

Monday, July 27, 2020

How COP AND A HALF Divided Siskel & Ebert More Than Any Other Film


T
he legendary movie critics Roger Ebert, of the Chicago Sun Times, and Gene Siskel, of the Chicago Tribune, may be long gone (Siskel died in 1999; Ebert in 2013), but their legacy remains strong particularly among film geeks like me who still watch their old clips on YouTube.

Siskel & Ebert (this is the official order of their names according to law and/or PBS branding), disagreed on many, many movies but none was as hilariously divisive as Henry Winkler’s (that
’s right, The Fonz) 1993 comedy COP AND A HALF.


This family-friendly buddy cop flick, which paired a tired-looking Burt Reynolds as a Tampa detective paired with 8-year Norman D. Golden II, as a kid who witnessed a murder and wants to be made a cop so he can help solve the killing.

It was a wacky premise, and one that looked pretty crappy via TV spots and the poster, especially considering how dire Reynolds’ film career was at that point. Definitely not an appealing prospect for most movie-goers.

Then this happened: On April 3, 1993, the weekend that COP AND A HALF was released, Roger Ebert led off he and Siskel’s popular syndicated series At the Movies with his review of the film (watch the clip). Usually they show a few clips before airing their opinions, but before offering up some excerpts from the film, Ebert called it “entertaining.”

After the montage of clips was over, Ebert rendered his review: “COP AND A HALF is not any kind of a masterpiece, but on the other hand, it’s not dumb and not boring either. And a lot of the credit for that goes to little Norman D. Golden II, who is a natural actor, very bright and very funny.

But, credit must also be paid to big Burt Reynolds, who takes what might’ve been a thankless role and plays it just right here, finding the right balance between toughness and humor. This movie has the kind of chemistry between the grown-up world and a smart kid that I looked for and missed in ‘HOME ALONE 2.’ It’s amusing, it moves, and somewhat to my surprise, I liked it.”

Then with perfect timing, Siskel replied: “Wow-ee, where’s your big red suit and beard, Santa? You just gave them a gift.”

Following that hilarious response, Siskel went on to say that Norman wasn’t “a particularly charismatic actor,” and that he didn’t think there “was any chemistry” between the two leads. Siskel ends his thumbs down segment saying of Ebert’s favorable review of COP AND A HALF, “I’m stunned, Roger.”

At the start of 1994, Siskel & Ebert aired their annual “Worst Movies” of the previous year round-up, and Siskel took the opportunity to again dump on COP AND A HALF. Siskel said that Reynolds performance “makes my skin crawl,” and concluded that “the only thing more unnerving than this picture is that my esteemed colleague, across the aisle, so wise, so often, is the only major film critic in America that actually recommended COP AND A HALF.”

Ebert responded: “Norman B. Golden was just wonderful in this film. Now, you have to admit it.”

“No I don’t have to admit it,” Siskel said. “He’s an okay movie kid – he’s a Hollywood acting kid.”

Siskel then barked about the script, the money, and Burt Reynolds has done too many cop pictures.

“Maybe you got up on the wrong side of bed that morning,” Ebert postulates.

“As did the rest of America,” Siskel concludes.

Ebert then said that he doubted he was the only major film critic that liked the film, but later that year, on Late Night With David Letterman, he complained to the host that “Burt Reynolds always bad mouths both of us, and I gave COP AND A HALF a good review, and I’m the only critic in the world who liked that movie. And he goes on some talk show and says ‘Siskel and Ebert don’t like anything I do,’ and, you know, why did I go out on a limb for him?’” So it seemed Ebert had accepted by then that he was the movie’s only fan as a critic.

COP AND A HALF came up now and then on At the Movies, but the most notable occasion came during the duo’s review of John Woo’s 1996 action thriller BROKEN ARROW (watch it here).

After giving a lukewarm, but positive review, Siskel does something he has never done before: he changes his mind on the film turning his thumb up to a thumb down. “I’m changing my opinion, now do me one…I know you’re amazed, do me one favor, look into the camera and say ‘I was wrong about COP AND A HALF - it wasn’t a very good movie.’” Ebert refused saying, “I won’t do that, I saw things in COP AND A HALF that I admire.” “That no one else did!” Siskel responded while laughing.

A half a week after this aired, Siskel & Ebert re-hashed this conversation on another of their many appearances on The Late Show with David Letterman. Siskel discussed his opinion change on BROKEN ARROW, then again needled Ebert: “Roger, do you want to change your vote on COP AND A HALF, with Burt Reynolds and a little boy, and, of course, Roger, being totally insecure, said ‘no, I don’t want to.’”

The spat was notorious enough that this quote was featured in obituaries of Ebert, after he passed in 2013: “Gene didn't like APOCALYPSE NOW, and I was appalled. I liked COP AND A HALF, and Gene was appalled.”

For his part, I can’t find a single interview in which Reynolds spoke of the film. It did little to slow his career decline, something even his acclaimed Oscar-nominated role in Paul Thomas Anderson’s BOOGIE NIGHTS failed to do (it didn’t help that he hated BOOGIE NIGHTS, bad mouthing it often). Reynolds passed in 2018, sadly leaving behind a legacy in which his many bad movies may be remembered better than his few good ones.

As I mentioned at the top of this post that Siskel & Ebert are no longer with us but there’s a wealth of their great stuff on YouTube: full episodes of their series from their original show on PBS to the syndicated At the Movies franchise, plus tons of talk show appearances.


So that leaves the last leading player in the COP AND A HALF, the A HALF. Norman D. Golden II, who also goes by the name Enormus as a rapper, was asked in a 2014 for the site, “Little White Lies,” about the criticism the film received back upon release in 1993: “Critics can be cruel but that’s what they get paid to do! I honestly wasn’t really exposed to much of what the critics were saying mostly because my parents did not want that to affect my creativity.”

After all of this critical hubbub, I must say that while was roundly panned by everyone except Ebert, COP AND A HALF was actually a mild success (largely due to a small budget) and even a quarter of a century later spawned a sequel entitled COP AND A HALF: NEW RECRUIT, starring Lou Diamond Phillips, and newcomer Lulu Wilson, which was rightfully ignored presumably because it was a direct-to-video release.

It seems fitting that part of Ebert’s legend is that he would often stick up for the little fluffy movies that could, even when everyone else thought they couldn’t. Siskel disliking APOCALYPSE NOW or some other well received film, just doesn’t have the same likable impact as Ebert’s going against the negative flow for such a silly forgettable kids-themed comedy. COP AND A HALF may be forgettable as a film, but this funny feud between Siskel & Ebert made it one of the most memorable movies they ever argued about in their 24-year career together.

More later...

Saturday, September 05, 2009

New DVD Reviews: TAKE OUT & RANDY AND THE MOB

Here's a couple of movies new to DVD that you may not have heard of. They are both indies and both deal with folks in way over their heads in debt. And they are both worth a look: TAKE OUT (Dirs. Sean Baker & Shih-Ching Tsou, 2004) We first meet the protagonist of this piece, Charles Jang as an illegal Chinese immigrant, in his grimy shit-hole of a New York apartment as he's being roughed up for money owed for smuggling him into the country. The loan shark goons tell him he has until the end of the day to pay them or the debt will double. Jang works as a bicycle delivery-man for a Chinese restaurant in the middle of melting pot Manhattan. Bit by bit he borrows from family and friends but still comes up short. His only option is to make up the difference in tips so he takes all the day's deliveries at one point yelling "I can't afford any mistakes today!" at his confused co-workers. Jang's exasperation is palpable as he deals with a dreary rainy day, his bike getting a flat tire, and scores of lousy tippers. "I could've mail-ordered Chinese food faster than this" one smarmy customer complains. Our weary yet determined trooper speaks very little English but he obviously feels the tone of hostility and racial tension seemingly hidden behind every door he comes to. Shot on digital video with a miniscule budget, TAKE OUT is gritty and engaging with a devastating last third (don't worry, no Spoilers). Whether you call the over-riding style of this fine film cinema vérité or neo-realism, there is not a single in-authentic moment present. RANDY AND THE MOB (Dir. Ray McKinnon, 2009) Alongside his varied career as a side-line character actor on TV (Designing Women, Matlock, Deadwood) and in movies (DRIVING MISS DAISY, APOLLO 13, O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU), Ray McKinnon has slowly but surely been carving a career as director. He won a Best Live Action Short Film Oscar for his debut THE ACCOUNTANT, got critical acclaim for his first full-length effort the crime-drama CHRYSTAL, and now is offering up this Southern fried comedy. Described as a "good ol' boy", Mckinnon's Randy Pearson owns several businesses in a small Georgia town and owes money on all of them because he borrowed from the Mob. Set in one of those little towns in which everybody knows each other (see such similar indies such as HAPPY, TEXAS and LARS AND THE REAL GIRL), this movie sports a strong supporting cast. McKinnon's real-life wife (Lisa Blount) plays his clinically depressed spouse, Paul Ben-Victor has an odd surly warmth as a loan shark, Burt Reynolds has a one scene cameo as a business competitor of McKinnon's, and most notably Walto Goggins portrays a very odd enforcer who wins over just about everybody with his cooking, clogging, and soft spoken, yet statically worded, advice. I couldn't possibly leave out that McKinnon plays another role, that of his gay identical twin brother. That's right.

It doesn't contain big laughs or any surprises really, but RANDY AND THE MOB has plenty of charm under its down-home yet cliché riddled surface. It's a well made movie with a likable spirit; one with the right amount of heart for its characters. McKinnon is more than just a competent director/actor - his ability to pull of the gay brother part without any of a cheap cringing undertone is worth commending (especially with Goggins' line: "He's as gay as a 1940's musical"). For a low-key comedy of modest proportions, this is certainly a success. It only had a few showings at film festivals and was passed over for a theatrical release, but now on DVD, with much hope it will find the audience it richly deserves.

More later...

Monday, May 08, 2006

Charleen Swansea: The Film Babble Blog Interview

Could you turn it off? This is important. This is not art, this is life! - Charleen Swansea in SHERMAN'S MARCH (Dir. Ross McElwee, 1986)


Being a lover of local film making and documentaries I was elated about the recent release of a DVD box set of the work of Ross McElwee, which contains his films CHARLEEN (1978), BACKYARD (1984), SHERMAN’S MARCH (1986), TIME INDEFINITE (1993), SIX O’CLOCK NEWS (1997), and BRIGHT LEAVES (2004).

So I thought it would be a good occasion to have a chat with the subject of his first doc, poetry teacher Charleen Swansea. Swansea was as funny and feisty as she was in the four films she made with McElwee as she discussed those docs, her experiences with such luminaries as Ezra Pound and Albert Einstein, and her new film project LIVING HISTORIANS.

Film Babble Blog: With the release of this DVD box set what stands out the most to you looking back at those films?

CHARLEEN SWANSEA: I loved watching Ross evolve into his style. Kind of the like the TV series that Alfred Hitchcock had. It would come on and show Alfred Hitchcock and the shape of his profile and then he would slowly walk into it. I felt like that was what I watched Ross do. He walked into his own profile.

SIX O'CLOCK NEWS and TIME INDEFINITE,were originally one film. Ross knew what he was working on was getting much too long but he was so in to what he was discovering as he continued to film that he just kept going and looking at what was coming up. It felt right and so he just kept filming, thinking I'll sort it out later.

When I said to him, I think this is getting too long he answered "no this isn't long enough". He turned out to be right and he got 2 really fine films. They are of a piece to me because Ross comes out of the closet with his own spirituality in those 2 films. He lets go and lets you see what he is really made of.

He's a sentimental spiritual man who also happens to be a film genius. The style he found is something no film maker tried before. It is such an insightful and appealing style that everybody wants to try recording their “personal history” now.

FBB: I rewatched SHERMAN'S MARCH yesterday and I loved the fact that your great line – "this is not art its life" is the name of a chapter heading on the DVD.

CS: Ross quotes that a lot - frequently when I see him.

FBB: In that scene and others in that movie you seemed genuinely annoyed at him having the camera on so much.

CS: Well I was! So was his father. You see that in TIME INDEFINITE. Dr. McElwee is on the phone talking urgently about a patients care. When he hangs up he sees Ross who has been watching through the camera lens all the while he was talking about saving somebody's life or cutting somebody open or something serious and there is Ross, just watching while his father in exasperation says "I'll be glad when that big eye is out of here."

Thank God his father, whom Ross adored and I did too, lived long enough…you know he died suddenly of a heart attack while driving in the snow. It was devastating for the family but he lived long enough that came to admire what Ross was doing and to tell him so.

There was a lot of pressure on Ross as an adolescent boy. He is the first born son in a large family. He was expected to become a surgeon like his father. His brother Tommy did do that. And there was another boy. Did you know that?

FBB: No, I was unaware.

CS: Nobody talks about it much. The McElwee family with 4 kids would go on the weekends to the lake. They went swimming, diving off the dock. One day a speed boat came by and cut one of the boys in half. Dr. McElwee was there. So was Ross. And the mother they adored. She grieved and then came down with cancer. Nobody spoke of the connection but many thought the loss killed her.


That pain played like a cello in Ross’s growing up and I think of it sometimes watching the films. I can feel the wounds in Ross’s heart. And I think sometimes that in his films that Ross is…trying to make things okay. The viewer senses that things are not okay.


FBB: Trying to make order out of chaos?


CS: You know Ross cares about the heart and soul of people. He is not always capable of taking care of details. When we were filming BRIGHT LEAVES we went to the Duke mansion where the film opened. We stayed there an hour and a half then we went to his house which I call "Buck Duke's outhouse" and when we left, I don't remember where we were going, to Raleigh or someplace. 20 minutes down the road Ross said "you know I left the soundtrack for the film on the column outside the Duke Mansion."



In SHERMAN'S MARCH he is talking to the camera and he steps backward and disappears. He actually stepped back ward into a river! He chose the scene for its beauty but then, talking to the audience and forgot where he was and went down.

FFB: (Laughs) Yes, that's a great moment.

CS: He's a klutz. He's incurable. He's inept in a lot of ways. But one reason he's inept is because he believes what is really important is making things right in his own heart and mind and with his own family, with his Grandma, with black people, with violence in the world.

I mean he really is after doing something about it! That's why I love and admire him no matter what he steps into or loses. Ross leads with his heart and completely trust his intuition.

FBB: When you've talked before about being embarrassed about the material in CHARLEEN, it's notable that there many embarrassing moments for Ross in his movies where it is amazing to me that he left some of the stuff in – the conquests of the girls in SHERMAN'S MARCH.

CS: There's no conquest! He never had one conquest!

FBB: Not a conquest then but his trying to talk one woman into being in a relationship with him.

CS: Yeah right, that was pitiful wasn't it?

FBB: Sometimes I look back at my life and feel like its nothing but one embarrassing episode after another, and it seems that there's the truth in art – to show that and not be afraid. Yeah, that's who I am. That's what I get. Within that kind of thinking I was so amused by the weird Burt Reynolds bit in SHERMAN'S MARCH.

CS: Wasn't that funny? That was so funny.

FBB: So Ross is trying to break through the barriers to get Burt's take on concepts like masculinity in the South. I mean he's on the set of a redneck car race movie, I doubt he'll be Mr. Insight and have much to say on that. It was so amusing to me that he would be going after that angle at all.

CS: Well you know Ross is really an intellectual. We don't think about that because we don't see it. His ineptness and his being embarrassed and what you're saying about him is all true. And it is amusing to all of us – we think "thank God that's not me". While the movies are playing we don’t see the strength of his intellect.

However, one of the most exciting intellectual conversations that I've ever had in my life (and remember I've had conversations with Einstein, Bucky Fuller, and Ezra Pound) was with Ross.

We were going to Ocracoke to shoot that scene in which my sister had just been buried. The ferry ride took 5 hours. On the way over Ross and I sat together and he told me about what he thought BRIGHT LEAVES might take as a direction.

Not what it was about because that's not the way he works.

It might be this and it might look at that and it might...and he threw on the table all different kinds of ideas as if they were children's building blocks - blue and green and red and purple and there were a couple of yellow bridges. 

Remember those blocks from when we were kids? I said "you have more than you want to use in front of you because if you use them all it is really going to be complicated." 

But Ross seemed determined to use ALL of those ideas that it took 5 hours to bring up and speculate about. He was determined to find the way that it all fit together, to discover the relevance of each of the many parts. And darned if he didn't do it !! 

When I saw BRIGHT LEAVES for the first time I wanted to stand up and cheer. But I was so overcome by surprised and amazement at what he had accomplished, and I was so proud of him that all I could do was to cry.

I had heard his thinking out loud about so many of those ideas and now here they were put together in a profound way. 

A way that is also includes humor and a depth of intellect and emotion. I thought Ross had made something like a 3 dimensional puzzles of Chartres or the Louvre. Something really complex with flying buttresses at every side and spires and bells. 

FBB: You think BRIGHT LEAVES is Ross's most fully realized film?

CS: Yes. By the time he's making BRIGHT LEAVES he's the Jack and the Beanstalk giant and he's striding across the terrain. Given that a dog is nipping at his heels as he walks.

FBB: Do you still think Ezra Pound is the greatest teacher of the 20th century like you said some 20 odd years ago? 

CS: Yes. What he taught was sometimes crack-pot and stupid but his methods were, I think, incredible. I've based my whole teaching life on what I learned from him while sitting in the yard at the insane asylum. 

That experience gives to rise all these metaphors about different color blocks. Pound never used that metaphor, but it's a metaphor for what I saw him do. I turned it into building blocks and took a thousand of them to Hawaii where I was lecturing to an international conference on thinking skills. It changed my life – that idea and that conference and that metaphor. That's where I thought up my company called Mindworks. 

FBB: How long has, your company, Mindworks been around? 

CS: Danny I don't know because I've had so many careers. I've had 5 careers. I started as a publisher because I couldn't find my niche.

At first I decided I wanted to be a ballerina and go to New York and be trained by George Ballenchine, and then my dance instructor said "Charleen, that's wonderful but you do realize you have one leg that's an inch and a half shorter than the other and I don't think he'll take you honey."

I tried to be a painter and I had no talent for it. Then I went on a voice scholarship to Westminster Choir College at Princeton and I wasn't there but a week until they moved me laterally into conducting class because my voice was "precious."

Because I couldn't figure out what I was going to do I ran away to Pound so he could make me famous and help me. While I watched Pound interact with creative ideas and people I figured that I wanted to do the same thing he did: Put things together. 

Synthesize! And that’s what I have done ever since. 

It’s like making a found sculpture. I can take pots and some pails and ribbon and dirt, a dictionary and a bunch of kids and make up something wonderful that will utilize ALL of those resources.

That's what I do in CHARLEEN, I'm putting together a bunch of scraps. So when Ross decided to make a movie about me, it was because Ross and I have a lot in common. 

We're both synthesizers. We love the process of putting things together and we especially like it if the materials are complicated and difficult. That leads to surprises and sometimes to something beautiful or profound. I can name a few people that do that and they all turn out to be people I'd admire very much. People like Marvin Minsky who at MIT works with Artificial Intelligence. 

He puts together metal and fur and batteries and other stuff and calls it a robot and tells us this is our future. 

And Buckminster Fuller did that.

Bucky said "no, no, no – you don't understand what an automobile is, it can have 3 wheels, one here, one here, one here. Its called the Dymaxion car – I invented it. I built one - here it is! " 

Okay let's go test it.” Went out in the street to test it and it ran over somebody. 

It was a fabulous car but there was an accident that ended the development of that fabulous idea right there on the street the first time they drove it. Buckminster Fuller was in love with architecture, design and mathematics. And so am I.

FBB: Speaking of mathematics, how did you get in with Einstein? 

CS: "Get in with him" doesn't seem right to me - I was just a little girl! I was 14 years old and I was conducting a choir and I didn't do it very well and Einstein laughed at me and I cried. 

He felt bad about that. He was a gentle, sensitive man. When I met him he was head of the Institute for Advanced Research. He had worked on the atomic bomb and he was suffering from regret and anxiety about developing such destructive power and anxiety over how it would be used. 

Everyday at lunchtime he would come to Westminster Choir College. 11:00 am was the time that the Conducting class took place in the Chapel. Einstein was sitting in the back almost unseen. I was on stage standing on a box in front of the choir. I was not doing it well and when the students laughed at my clumsiness, I heard Einstein laughing at the back and sat down on the box to cry.

The bells for lunch began to ring and the chapel emptied of everyone but me and Einstein who, with his cane walked to the front to comfort me. 

He told me how he loved Bach, and explained to me that music was a lot like math. I realized that he was the person who had been playing the music I listened to everyday at lunchtime. 

Many students would sit on the grass outside the chapel eating sandwiches and listening to the music of Bach and Handel that was coming from the chapel organ. I remember thinking that the person who was playing did it like I did it like I did it: more with his heart than his fingers. 

I later was told that it was the very famous Dr. Einstein and that he was also a excellent violinist. I also knew that he was very kind. After I messed up at conducting, he said, "Let's go outside for a walk. It is a beautiful day and – I want to show you something."

We went along the hedge leading into the town and suddenly he turned to point his cane at a large black spider, a writing spider - in the middle of a white web with yellow zig-zagging lines. “It’s horrible I said.” 

“No, no. It’s wonderful and it’s writing something."

"What's he writing? I can't read it." 

We watched for a while before I asked “Can you read it? What does it say?” 

“No, I can not read it.” 

“Then why is he doing it? Can anybody read it? Can we learn how to read it?" 

"Yes, yes. One day we will be able to read it." 

Then he seemed to start thinking about something else. He walked off and got on a bicycle – a girl's small pink bicycle. After he died and for years now I have kept in my office a poster of Einstein riding a bicycle. And I think often about how music and math and spiders are connected in many ways. 

Einstein was the first man whose mind I admired. There have been others since: Ezra Pound, Buckminster Fuller, Marvin Minsky, and now Ross became one of them after I saw BRIGHT LEAVES.

Gentleman genius is how I think of them all, and what a privilege it is for me to have had them as mentors. 

FBB: What can you tell me about the film project you are working on now? 

CS: It's about war and I don't know why I'm working on it because I'm a Quaker! 

FBB: Well it's most likely not pro-war, right? 

CS: It is a re-enactment of what life was like on the Battleship North Carolina. 

There are still a few veterans of World War II who have not died yet! The name of this film is LIVING HISTORIANS. 

The historians are going to be a couple of kids – my Grandkids! They will be interviewing these old gentlemen who are 80 years and older. I think this will provide a lively viewpoint. 

The children will cut to the heart of things by asking questions like: Were you afraid? Which was your gun and can I shoot it? Raven, my 11 year old grand daughter will probably want an explanation of why there were no women allowed on the ship. 

No, it will not celebrate war. But neither are we going after this topic in order to prove something. It is going to be a real Documentary film, an investigation and report, unlike Michael Moore’s work in which he sets out to prove a conclusion he came to before he films. 

I'm excited about it. My daughter-in-law Cyndi is going to be running the camera – I'm the producer/photographer, and all husbands and children are the actors and working crew. Cyndi is passionate about history, my husband Mark’s father flew helicopters in the Vietnam War, and Mark himself is a former officer in a nuclear submarine that served during the Cold War. We have all gotten has gotten very interested in the many people and groups that are putting together “re-Enactments” of the Civil War, the history of other wars and regions and monuments and cultures in order to make history come alive. 

It seems peculiar to me that people take seriously dressing up like King Arthur's Round table and rehearse shows where they run at each other with bayonets and shields and garbage cans on their head. Our “LIVING HISTORY” crew wants to learn what kind of people would do that? Why do they spend so much money on their costumes? 

Making replicas of whole towns that are gone now. Is it important to keep history alive. Can we do it and take it as “recreation?” This coming week end is Re-enactment day at the Battleship North Carolina and that’s where we're going. 

One of the funniest things that has happened which charmed me into the project because I love projects that are funny…the funniest thing that has happened is that my husband Mark, who is a former commander of a nuclear submarine, was in the Navy and under the ocean for 7 years with his thumb on the red button that was pointed at Moscow from where he was stationed deep in the ocean, under the ice…when he goes back to the Battleship North Carolina he encounters a group of guys who have never done military service but want to play like they are doing it now! 

However they are selective and have attitude. Few want to be a sailor in a “Dixie Cup” hat and Navy bell bottom pants. They prefer to wear the white uniforms of an Officer's uniforms. 

They must buy their authentic WWII Navy issue clothes which are not cheap or easy to come by so Mark picks up the “swab the decks version.” to wear in our movie. In fact Mark has already been to Wilmington twice to help clean the ship up for the important Memorial Day when we will be shooting the film. 

He has special value to us because he knows so much about what went on in Navy life. I don't know how else we would get some of the data that we hope will give an interesting perspective to this movie. Otherwise we would have to ask the re enactors: "were you on the ship? Were you in the Navy? No, no? - well anyhow, you look good!" 

More later...