Decameron Nights

Many years ago, I came across a Hollywood B-movie from 1953 called Decameron Nights. It was an adaptation of Giovanni Boccaccio's story collection starring Louis Jourdan and Joan Fontaine (a young Joan Collins also appears in the film). Although Boccaccio wrote in the 14th century, the movie's costumes were a Hollywood version of 15th century clothing. I rather enjoy cheesy historical films of that era, so I watched it more than once.

My favorite of the film's tales was that of a female physician who was rewarded with her choice of husband. Her new spouse had no say in the matter, however, and he refused to consummate the marriage or live with his wife until she had born his son and worn his ring. Through a clever ruse, she manages to do both, and rather than be furious at her subterfuge, he happily keeps his promise. In Boccaccio's version, the clever wife is named Gillette; the film changed it to Isabella (perhaps because the original name was most familiar in the U.S. as a brand of razor blades and was no longer given to girls). Fans of Shakespeare may recognize the plot of All's Well That Ends Well, which was based on Boccaccio's tale.

For years, I've wanted to write a historical romance that is loosely based on this story. It is problematic, however. One needs to make the hero enough of an asshat to justify the heroine essentially recreating the most problematic scene from Revenge of the Nerds. It is very difficult to handle that without making either the hero or the heroine completely unsympathetic.

I was intrigued when I read the blurb for Joanna Shupe's The Courtesan Duchess, because I realized she had attempted that very thing. I was dying to know how she handled it. It seems that she made a conscious decision to draw upon the mores of an earlier era. The book feels like a deliberate homage to old school historical romances. It includes some elements -- like an adversarial relationship between hero & heroine and infidelity by the hero on the page -- that have definitely gone out of fashion but were once common in the genre.

Florian's, which looks much as it might
have in Nick's day.

Shupe made Venice come alive for me with her descriptions; I suspect she has actually been there in the Autumn, when the acqua alta floods wax and wane during the week. I'm enjoying the book in a nostalgic way. It brings back fond memories of Venice and also fond memories of romances I read in my younger days. It is not a clone of those books, however. There is an awareness that reader attitudes and cultural values have changed. I'm looking forward to learning how Nick and Julia overcome their past mistakes and make amends.

Are You Kidding, Moviefone?

So, yesterday I saw this Moviefone slideshow of the James Bond films rated, from worst to best. I found myself talking back to my computer screen with nearly every click.

First of all, the 1967 Casino Royale farce should not even be counted as a James Bond movie. It has no business being included in the list.

How in the world can they rank License to Kill higher than The Living Daylights?  I know that Timothy Dalton gets no love from a lot of critics and fans, but of his two movies, the first is clearly superior, unless you also like Roger Moore's campy movies more than Sean Connery's serious ones.

There are several more Bond films that are worse than Quantum of Solace. Granted, it was a weak outing for Daniel Craig, but it's not nearly as bad as several others that Moviefone ranks higher.

Octopussy is a terrible movie. There are no metrics by which it is better than For Your Eyes Only. Live and Let Die is also a terrible movie. I loved it as a child, but as an adult, I find it cringeworthy. The only good thing about it is Paul McCartney's title track.

OK, so how would I rank the James Bond movies?  Here is my list, from best to worst.

1. Casino Royale (the real one, with Daniel Craig)
2. From Russia with Love (exotic locales and Rosa Klebb)
3. Skyfall (a beautiful homage to 50 years of Bond films)
4. Goldfinger ("No, Mr. Bond; I expect you to die.")
5. Dr. No (the movie that started it all)
6. The Living Daylights (Bond helps the Mujahedeen - what could possibly go wrong?)
7. GoldenEye (Pierce Brosnan always seemed too delicate to be Bond, but this is his best)
8. You Only Live Twice (two words: volcano lair)
9. The Spy Who Loved Me (a Bond girl with agency, and Jaws)
10. The World Is Not Enough (Sophie Marceau is terrific as the femme fatale)
11. Thunderball (two words: jet pack)
12. Quantum of Solace (not terribly memorable, but relatively inoffensive)
13. For Your Eyes Only (Roger Moore is looking old, but this one is less campy than others)
14. The Man with the Golden Gun (campy but fun)
15. Tomorrow Never Dies (a tame outing with a dull villain)
16. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (terribly silly in so many ways)
17. Never Say Never Again (I think Connery did this as an apology for Diamonds Are Forever)
18. License to Kill (Wayne Newton is over the top as a secondary villain)
19. Die Another Day (tries to be an homage to 40 years of Bond films; comes off as a satire)
20. Diamonds Are Forever (Bond helps South Africa's apartheid regime and the De Beers monopoly)
21. Octopussy (props to Maud Adams for playing a second Bond girl later in her career)
22. Live and Let Die (white Brits should not try to make Blaxploitation films)
23. Moonraker (so ridiculous, not even Jaws could save it)
24. A View to a Kill (I prefer the Duran Duran video to the movie -- "Bon. Simon Le Bon.")

Sullivan's Travels: a Film that Every American Should See

I've been thinking a lot lately about Preston Sturges' classic 1942 film Sullivan's Travels. It has often been called the best movie about movies ever made. It takes sharp aim at privileged Hollywood liberals who try to raise awareness of social issues that they do not understand at all. Director Sturges also wrote the screenplay about a successful Hollywood director of light comedies who wishes to make an important movie about the plight of the downtrodden. Sullivan's project was to be called O Brother, Where Art Thou? (a title used decades later by the Cohen brothers for their homage to Sturges' film). Sullivan's studio tries to discourage him at first and then makes a publicity stunt of his attempt to do research by impersonating a hobo (brilliantly anticipating any number of modern "reality television" shows).

 While the movie was marketed as a romantic comedy, the comedy is definitely of the dark variety, and the romance does not take center stage. It does, however, play an important part in the story. Sullivan only begins to understand the real problems of poor people who cannot go back to their comfortable mansions when he meets Veronica Lake's character in this diner scene:



Their acquaintance grows, but they are separated when a series of misadventures leads to Sullivan losing his true identity, running afoul of the law, and being sent to prison.

The depiction of life on a prison chain gang is realistically bleak, so much so that the movie was banned from overseas distribution during wartime (for fear that it could be used as anti-American propaganda). Highly unusual for its time, it portrays incarcerated men in a sympathetic light and shows the very different versions of justice that exist for the rich and the poor.

In the end, Sullivan concludes that escapist entertainment is more valuable to the poor than serious films about their plight. Critics of the film point to that rather self-serving conclusion as the hypocritical moral of the story (when it was released, the NYT complained that "Sullivan should have been more affected by his experience than he seems to be"). I think they have rather missed the point. I believe the real moral of this film is that most of us spend our lives blithely unaware of our own privilege.

I think Sullivan's Travels should be annual viewing around the Thanksgiving holiday -- both to help us better appreciate what we have, and to help us feel genuine compassion for the downtrodden. I also think it should be required viewing for those in the publishing industry who make elitist distinctions between "literary fiction" and genre fiction. Just because a novel is structured to entertain and deliver a happily-ever-after does not mean it cannot make us think about larger issues. The value of entertainment and the HEA should also be weighed in the balance when considering the merits of a work.