Tackle that stash - Mookaite "teeth" earrings

Maybe you remember my mookaite "teeth" necklace that I made a few years ago inspired by a favorite YA novel of my childhood (with regular re-reads) - Rulaman from 1878 about a tribe of cave people set in an area not far from me at all which of course made this an even more fascinating read.
This is an illustration of the fest held after they hunted down the dangerous cave lion to whom they lost so many family members.
The idea that there were cave lions and bears in my area was so exciting to me!

I said then that I might make more using a different Delica color and of course promptly forgot about that until I shared the necklace elsewhere last week.

Last time I used copper and berry for the bead strips holding the stones and even if it doesn't seem this way, I chose the stones by size. The one in the center is the longest and then I chose similarly sized pairs to build the sides.
This time I went for different browns for the strips and as my left over stones were all over the place in regards to size, I thought earrings from teeth would have been something even for Neanderthals - not in combination with metal of course, but after all the plan was not to make authentic Neanderthal jewelry, but to be inspired by it.
Yes, it is indeed believed that they did wear jewelry and makeup.
Of course those earrings would be asymmetrical and probably random in the choice of stones, just the way mine are.

At first I had put three stones on each earring, but I couldn't get the third stone and chain to fall the way I wanted it to, due to the size of the dangles. I think two worked much better.

Here's a longer variation.

Not all of my stash tacklers have to become something big.
My mookaite stash is not even close to being used up with these earrings. I have a little box with different sizes, shapes, and colors.
There are also these beautiful big beads, not many matching pairs among them, but these two cream colored make a really nice one.

Since I got that box in a destash, the beads call to me every, now and then. It will be interesting to see even for myself what the next ones will want to be!

Silent movies - A trip to the moon

1902 was a good year. My grandmother was born which also made me possible and therefore this post, and Richard Steiff designed their first teddy bear, the PB 55 (I'm not going into the discussion who invented the teddy).
And it also was the year for "Le voyage dans la lune" to come out, in English known as "A Trip to the Moon".
It's incredible 15 1/2 minutes long which was quite long, practically feature-length for those early days of film.
What's happening, you may think, so much for attention span! Is she already getting tired? Will the next one be even shorter? Let's say that's not the plan, but you never know what happens.

Not only does this film takes us to yet another genre, science-fiction, and is regarded to be the first one in it, but it's iconic - in fact it's where it all began.
Of course that doesn't mean it's the first movie ever as we all know, but those coming before were short documentations of everyday life, such as the famous train arriving at a station, by the Lumière brothers.
Enter the stage - Georges Méliès.

Public domain via Wikimedia

Méliès was born into a wealthy family, his father had a high-quality boot factory. When he was sent to London for work and to improve his English, visits at the Egyptian Hall sparked his passion for stage magic which didn't stop when he returned to Paris. After his father retired, Méliès sold his share to his brothers, bought a theater, and began creating illusions of his own.
Attending a private demonstration of the Lumière cinematograph led to Méliès buying an Animatograph film projector and modifying it into a film camera. Unlike the Lumières, however, who wanted to save the medium for scientific and historical study, he used it to bring his magic and special effects such as the stop trick or superimposition - which he also often invented himself -  onto the screen and to cater to the fairground and music hall crowd. He also often acted in his own films.
Unfortunately, his career declined over the years due to problematic deals which finally led to his ruin, so he had to earn his livelihood at a candy and toy stand. Even after his work was rediscovered and appreciated again, his financial situation did not improve until his death.

Back to our moon trip.
The story is told rather quickly as early Méliès films didn't have an elaborate plot.
A group of scientists - looking more like wizards with their pointy hats and robes - fly to the moon in a space capsule launched by a cannon and with a military group of ladies in shorts (that would have reminded me of the shorts we wore to sports in school in the early 70s if they had been black) cheering them on.

Even if you don't know the film, you probably know this picture, the Man in the Moon hit in the eye by the space capsule (we never learn if he has recovered from this traumatic incident; also I can never help being reminded of the moon from The Mighty Boosh which simply must have been inspired by this one).

The scientists get out, watch the Earth rise, and fall asleep missing the celestial and magic scene above them until they get woken up by snow.

They explore the fantastic moonscape until they meet the moon's natives, kill some of them - at least that's how I interpret them going up in smoke -  but finally get captured.
They manage to escape and run back to their capsule followed by natives with big spears.

Are you confused by the mix of black and white and color
in the screenshots? We'll be getting to that.

They kill some more, but one of them jumps on the capsule before the scientists leave the moon and dive into the ocean. The space capsule is towed back by a ship and the scientists, showing off the native who miraculously survived the fall as well, are welcomed home enthusiastically.

The movie was inspired by Jules Verne and H. G. Wells books. Humankind has always been fascinated by the moon and there are many tales woven around it, new and old ones, so I'm not surprised Méliès liked the idea of going to the moon and find it filled with wonders.
I'm not sure how much his scientists really appreciate that thought, however. As mentioned in one blog, "film historian Matthew Solomon points out that Méliès' 1890s political cartoons mocked militant nationalism and bullying colonialism". I think it's safe to say that the wizardy costumes already show that Méliès didn't take them too seriously, also the professor (played by himself) simply draws an arrow from Earth to Moon and off they go where no man has gone before. Who even designed the capsule? They more or less just stand in the way when it's being built.
Then, instead of doing some serious exploring, they immediately get distracted by a moon native, start killing a few, escape, kill some more and shove off, only to show off the one native they brought home in a very undignified way.
Sounds rather familiar, doesn't it, especially for a time when there were still "human zoos".
And for those who didn't notice that, it was just fun, whimsy, and magical.

Méliès had some of the prints hand colored - that explains the screen shots, you can see the movie in black and white here or the colored version here - and one of those was found in Spain in 1993 and restored which took years. There's a documentary about it which I haven't seen (yet), but would love to.
Hand colored means someone actually painted frame by frame. The sets themselves had been painted in black and white for better contrast in the film.
Try both versions and see what you like better. I think here the colors add to the magic and dreamy mood.

The film was a success with the audience. Unfortunately, that also contributed to it being heavily pirated in the USA (yes, Edison was included, too) and imitated which resulted in big profit losses for Méliès who had not only put a lot of time, but also money into it.

If you are interested in the medium film at all, give this a try (and the two videos in the sources which tell you more about the film, but also the man behind it). It's worth it.

Sources:
1. A Trip to the Moon: Film History #1. On YouTube, channel "A Matter of Film"
2. The Father of Special Effects: Georges Méliès. On YouTube, channel "This is Barris! - French History"
3. Fritzi Kramer: A Trip to the Moon (1902): A Silent Film Review. On "Movies Silently", March 29, 2015
4. Daniel Stride: Review: A Trip to the Moon [Film] (1902). On: A Phuulish Fellow, July 19, 2020
5. Dan Stalcup: Review: A Trip to the Moon (1902). On: The Goods: Film Reviews, November 20, 2020

Springtime in Paris - Paris Blues

This post is part of the Springtime in Paris event that Erin from Still Life, With Cracker Crumbs and Lisa from Boondock Ramblings have on their blogs this spring.
Today's movie is "Paris Blues".

Artists of all kinds have always been drawn by the charms of Paris, painters, photographers, composers, musicians, and there is more than one movie about Americans in Paris (for example "An American in Paris", what a surprise).

"Paris Blues" is about two of them, Ram and Eddie, both of jazz musicians.
Ram is white and aspires to be a serious musician, Eddie is black and came to Paris because to escape racism at home (as in fact many black artists did).
At the train station, Ram meets two tourists, Connie who is black and her friend Lillian who is white. Ram is attracted to Connie and invites her to see him perform at the club. She's not interested, but Lillian convinces her to go. When they leave the club, Ram tries to flirt with Connie again and gets angry when she rejects him.
In the end, Connie leaves with Eddie and Ram ends up in bed with Lillian.

The relationships develop over the next few days.
Both of the women want the men to come back to the USA with them. Lillian, who has two children, wants Ram to commit to their relationship, Connie is convinced you can only change things at home and therefore tries to persuade Eddie to go back. Ram, however, puts his music first and Eddie is glad he experiences less discrimination and racism in Paris.
Thereupon, the women decide to head back home early.
After meeting with a record producer and having one of his compositions rejected, Ram is ready to go with Lillian.
Eddie can't bear the thought of losing Connie and agrees on following once he has settled his affairs in Paris.
When they meet at the train station, though, Ram tells Lillian he has changed his mind and will be staying in Paris because he can't give up on his dream of a more respected career as a musician. Lillian tells him he will never forget her and gets on the train, heart-broken.

The film doesn't show the romantic Paris for tourists. I couldn't imagine it in color. Actually Connie and Lillian don't even get the chance for sightseeing.
You get to see the Paris of the artists in pictures that are beautiful without being sugarcoated, the clubs, the bird market, the drugs, the good moments and the disappointments, the music and the mood, and the movie is easy enough to watch, but to me it was like a babbling brook. I can't help that image, that's what it felt like throughout the movie.
Connie and Eddie talk about racism and how she wants to fight it at its source and he wants to escape it, but it didn't sound as passionate to me as it could have been.
The same goes for Lillian and Ram, I didn't feel any big passion and therefore didn't feel very sympathetic towards both of them, Ram not getting his big chance with the producer and Lillian not getting the relationship she wanted.
Maybe I struggled understanding big decisions like that being made within 12 days?

There are only two scenes that really stood out for me and both of them didn't have to do with the couples.
One was when Louis Armstrong as Wild Man Moore comes into the club and starts a spontaneous jam session which is wonderful. Actually I loved the whole score by Duke Ellington, period.
The other one was when Ram got into a fight with his guitarist over his drug addiction. I really felt that one, but that wasn't what the movie was mainly about, right?

It has been said that the film missed the chance on making a real impact by not mixing the couples up. Poitier talked about the studio getting cold feet after - so the rumor goes - the original idea had been interracial relationships.
It would definitely have made it more interesting and given the opportunity for deeper conversations and conflict.

Now I'm not saying that "Paris Blue" is bad, I still enjoyed watching it, but I think it could have been better.
Poitier regarded it as a step in the right direction and maybe we should just take it as that.

Ombré flower

This pendant got started "backwards" because I had forgotten to sew on one of the leaves for Nadine's palm in my last embroidery piece. Then I found I just had about enough of those green beads left for one more leaf, so I beaded that, and only then I started thinking about a main design to go with those leaves.
I had a small flower in mind, but as you can see once again my mind and Mabel (my imaginary muse) didn't agree and as usual Mabel won.

I pulled three colors from my drawer for an ombré design. The red is one of my regular stock-ups because I love the color, the other two were in one of my surprise orders.
Sometimes the bead tubes in those orders are full, sometimes they are leftovers, so I didn't have much of the salmon color and therefore didn't know how many petals I would be able to make. I honestly didn't think it would be enough for the fifth one and had already made plans how to deal with that. It was pretty close in the end, I had about ten beads left when I finished!

After the petals were attached to each other, the hole in the center was next.
The last time I made a flower with brick stitch petals, I had filled the center with beads in the round, but this time I went for loads of stamina in yellow and gold on a bead foundation instead.
Then I sewed on the leaves and beaded a golden bail and voilà!
Some time ago I got some black satin ropes and spontaneously added a few pink ones although I didn't know if I would ever use those, but isn't it perfect for my flower?

Silent movies - Sherlock Jr.

When I introduced my silent movie project, I told you that I grew up with them - again, re-runs, I'm not that old.
What I seem to remember best from those times are the comedies. Laurel and Hardy (shorts), Harold Lloyd, Charlie Chaplin, and of course Buster Keaton.

For today I chose a Buster Keaton film that's not feature-length, but I couldn't remember having heard of it before and it sounded like fun.
It's "Sherlock Jr." from 1924 about a projectionist dreaming of becoming a detective and winning the love of his girl.

The movie starts by introducing the main characters - "The Boy" who studies "How To Be A Detective" from a book, his boss telling him to do his job instead, "The Girl", "The Girl's Father" who "had nothing to do so he got a hired man to help him" (love it!), and "The Local Sheik" (the name is a reference to another movie) who's also interested in the Girl.
The Boy wants to buy the Girl, who obviously comes from a wealthier family, a big box of chocolates, but he doesn't have enough money. So finally he gets her the small box, but changes the sticker from $1 to $4 and casually makes her see the price to impress her. Then he puts a ring with a tiny stone on her finger for which she needs the magnifying glass the Boy has on him. You can tell she really likes him because despite being disappointed, she's hiding that from him.
Meanwhile the Sheik has entered the house. Since he too doesn't have money, but wants to trump the Boy, he takes the Father's pocket watch from the waistcoat hanging on the wardrobe to pawn it and buy the big box of chocolates.
When he gives it to the Girl, the Father comes in to tell about his watch having been stolen. Our wannabe detective says he'll take the case and turns to his book. The Sheik sees that the first rule is to search everyone and slips the pawn ticket into the Boy's pocket.
When the Father searches the Boy, he finds the ticket for $4, so having changed the sticker backfires, the Father tells him he has to leave and the Girl gives back the ring. You can see, however, that they are both very distraught about it.

The Boy suspects the Sheik and shadows him without any success, so he heads back to the movie theater.
The Girl, however, goes to the pawn shop to ask for a description of the man bringing in the watch. Just then the Sheik happens to pass by and the pawnbroker recognizes him to be the one which the Girl then tells her father.

Meanwhile, the Boy has started the movie and falls asleep.
His dream self gets up and sees that the characters in the movie have changed to those in his life, so he enters the screen.

After getting thrown out again at first and then going through a number of different scenes, he - "the crime-crushing criminologist" named Sherlock Jr. - is called because a pearl necklace is stolen by the movie Sheik and his associate. He looks very dapper in his elegant outfit completely with top-hat and spats and has a very close look at the beautiful socialite in the house.

The thieves try everything to save themselves and kill the detective, but he escapes all their attempts very nonchalantly ...

He follows the Sheik, accompanied by his assistant, and finally manages to retrieve the necklace and jump on the assistant's motorcycle who unfortunately falls off without Sherlock Jr. noticing.
Next up is an incredible chase with the car full of gangsters going after the detective on the driverless motorcycle who rides from one danger into the next.
One of the gangsters has the young lady in his power, but Sherlock Jr. manages to save her and they escape in the gangsters' car.
At that point the Boy wakes up again and finds it was all just a dream, but then the Girl turns up to tell him they found out about him being innocent. So he takes clues from the final scene of the movie, holds her hands, kisses them, puts the ring back on her finger, and kisses her. Only the final image of the couple on the screen and their two babies confuses him visibly.

After first screenings didn't go well enough for him, Keaton made several cuts to "Sherlock Jr.", but the film still received mixed reviews for not being regarded funny.
Therefore Keaton himself did not see this movie as one of his good ones, but over time people began to praise it as a masterpiece.
There is theater magic, movie magic, incredible stunts, and a lot of practice in this. You can find a making of video here which explains quite a bit and it's utterly fascinating.
Two of my favorite scenes are
- the part where the gangsters try to kill Sherlock Jr., for example with a bomb in a billiard ball - he had practiced those trick shots
- the gangsters chasing Sherlock Jr. on the motorcycle, it's absolutely incredible - despite a bit of trickery being used, he actually practiced riding the motorcyle like this, how crazy is that?

I honestly can't remember ever having watched a complete Buster Keaton film, it must all have been snippets in the compilation shows of my childhood.
Of course I was aware that he mostly did his own stunts and that many were death-defying, but I don't think I ever really got the chance to grasp that fully until now.
There's this stunt for example during which the water pressure made Keaton lose his grip and hit his head on a steel rail. Despite heavy headaches, he kept on filming and only years later it was found out during a doctor's appointment that he had actually broken his neck!
And I can't get up from my bed without moaning 🤪

Of course I knew him only stone-faced, but I never knew to appreciate the effect that could have on scenes that would usually ask for big emotion.
I didn't only gasp at the stunts, though, but also loved how he showed the relationship between two people who seem to come from different worlds, but are still so sweet with each other. I guess I'm a sucker for heartwarming at the moment.

There may not be much of a plot - Keaton said he wanted it to feel like a dream, and you can tell it's made by someone who loved the medium film - but remember that this isn't feature-length. If I have learned something from these 44 minutes it's that I'm looking forward to seeing more.

Selected sources:
1. Kieran Judge: 'Sherlock Jr.' at 100 - Review. On: The Film Magazine, April 21, 2024
2. Jeffrey Vance: "Sherlock Jr." (1924). On: Library of Congress - Programs - National Film Preservation Board, October 2024
3. David A. Punch: Sherlock Jr: Keaton's Cinematic Genius. On: The Twin Geeks, September 2, 2019
4. Chris Scott Edwards: Sherlock, Jr. (1924). On: Silent Volume, July 5, 2009
5. David Johansson: Sherlock Jr. On: San Francisco Silent Film Festival. Winter Event 2009.

10 on the 10th, uhm, 9th - Diamonds in my life

Yes, I'm early again. The 10th is Thursday - silent movie day.
So I'm here today to talk about the prompt "Marsha in the Middle" gave us - diamonds in my life.
I have two options now. I get out all my jewelry, see if I get to ten with diamonds, clean it and take pictures. The other option is "mir etwas aus den Fingern zu saugen", literally to suck something out of my fingers or to make something up out of thin air as you would put it in English.
Both sounds very exhausting, it might be easier to go look for a diamond mine. Not that we have any around here.
This is alreay getting hard.
What else counts as diamonds in my life? Would rhinestones work, too? 😉
As usual, this will be in completely random order, but ...

1. How about starting with some real diamonds to give me a bit of time to think about the rest.
These are raw diamonds treated for blue color in fine silver wire crochet around an aquamarine drop. I made the ring in 2012 and think I would definitely do better now.

2. Let's do this right away. You know it, I know it ... the list wouldn't be complete without my cats and other animals. They are big carat diamonds.
This is the ancestral gallery.
Upper row - White Dude, Madam Mim, Magica de Spell, Jester, Gandalf
Bottom row - Merlin, Mephista, Greebo, Esmerelda Weatherwax, Ponder Stibbons

I don't have that many pictures of the rest of the zoo we lived with, at least not digital, so here are just a few. Very few. Volunteering at our local zoo for many years, we fostered, we adopted and had temporary guests.

3. "Panther and Tiger." No documentary, no martial arts movie, no book title. Those two are just my feline overlords (and they wouldn't appreciate my saying "just", I will probably regret that).

4. Family, friends - real life and online - and neighbors. I won't say more about that because they appreciate not ending up on my blog as more than a short remark and I respect that.

5. My library. I always dreamed of my own library. Shelves up to the ceiling would have been nice, but with high ceilings and my inability to get on a ladder and look up without getting dizzy - no idea if it's my glasses - that wouldn't have been a good idea.
Instead I have vintage book cabinets. This is half of them. Although this is an old picture and I have donated books since, the cabinets are still quite full.
And yes, I do have kind of a catalog.

6. My collections. They are more than just a bit of plush, vinyl, and whatnot.
They are experiences, memories of meeting people, making friendships - short-lived or really long ones - , of early mornings at fleamarkets, picknicks, amazing finds or newbie mistakes, disappointments, sunrises; they are also history, company history, design history, the history of people having an idea, of fails and successes which are often as interesting as the pieces themselves.
I might not remember the story to each piece I have, but I remember a lot, and if you make the mistake to ask me for one, you might not be able to stop me without pushing me into a river.
It's the same with all collectors, may their passion be stamps, coasters, porcelain, glass, books - or teddies and dolls.

7. Being creative. I've told the story before of how I got into crafting, how I found "my people", how I managed to do things I had never thought possible.
It was a long way from the girl who couldn't finish her cardigan in 4th grade (and didn't even want to) and got a C to the artisan I am now.
Had anyone told me back then that I would be knitting for years, work with wire and/or beads, needle felt, and embroider, I would have laughed out loud.

Here's my signature design, actually the miniature baskets were the first real design I ever made. Over the years, I have filled tiny baskets with all kinds of things, just yarn (wire or felted), yarn with scarves or socks, once a tiny knitting magazine, knitting needles or crochet hooks, cats, dogs, chickens, flowers, as pendants, earrings, and even rings.
This is one of my favorites, the basket is so tiny and cute, made from 0.2 mm sterling silver wire.

Enough now, I think you get the idea. I like being creative.

Also I appreciate artisans sharing their knowledge. I wouldn't even have dared to try more without the encouragement and mentoring I got when I started out.

8. Movies and shows. There are days when I'm pretty much knocked out. The Internet still allows me to keep contact and if even that is too much, I can find something on TV or watch a DVD.
And if you have a cat to snuggle up to you at the same time? Perfect.

9. This is probably the weirdest diamond in the list, but I think you will agree it's a big one even if it doesn't sparkle.
I have mentioned it before, my kidney and I have been together for more than 21 years now. We didn't have a perfect start, so that is practically a miracle.

10. Humor. Twisted, weird, black, dry. Where would we be without humor, a smile, a laugh? At the moment, I'm really grateful for all the cartoonists, comedians, and artists who share their work so generously. I wish I could support more of them.

There you go, ten diamonds in my life. They would make a very strange necklace indeed, but I don't prepare these posts, I just spill what's in my head right now.
Can't wait to see what the others list!

After Midnight and Harlekin

What do you think when you hear Steiff (if you know Steiff at all, that is)?
Your first thought probably goes to soft and cuddly plush animals for children. If you are a collector or, erm, old or maybe even both like me, you might think of mohair which is not so soft.

Actually, Steiff has used a lot of different materials over the years.
Before they started making toys, the founder Margarete Steiff had a business making felt clothing for women, and in fact the first animals were from felt as well, like the famous elephant pincushion which became so popular as a toy that it shifted the business from clothes to toys.
Other fabrics used were velvet and linen, and with the birth of the teddy bear mohair. Mohair is from the hair of the angora goat and Steiff always got it from the Schulte company, today one of the last weaving mills existing in Germany.

There were times, however, when materials like felt and mohair became scarce, for example in and around wartimes when they were used for military purposes instead like for uniforms.
Steiff always did its best to meet those challenges and come up with toys from substitute materials or to make toys other than plush animals, like a variety of wooden toys like building blocks, wooden flower building sets, carriages, scooters, and more.

For substitute materials they used wool plush, artificial silk plush, cotton plush, and in 1919, they actually made animals from paper plush made from wood fibers with a backing of cotton.
Given the fragility of this fabric, it is not surprising that paper plush animals are hard to find nowadays.
But fret you not, o collector!
In 2020, Steiff started a new line of animals made from different fabrics called "Teddies for tomorrow" (although it's not just teddies). There's rayon, linen/cotton, alpaca, linen/vegan felt, bamboo, hemp, plush from recycled PET bottles - and paper plush.
One reason are rising energy and material costs which endanger the future of Steiff Schulte (which was taken over by the Steiff Holding in 2009), the other the question of sustainability which should be a topic for every company.

Being mainly a collector of vintage Steiff, this series had gone by me completely until someone told me to look a sweet dark blue bear ... and sometime later at a colorful bear.
They are called After Midnight and Harlekin.
(Marsha, this is for you - it was a (very good) sale and I blame my sister. Again.)
These are no cuddly teddies meant for children, not that I expected them to be. The paper plush feels a bit harder than my towels (I don't like fabric softener) which is interesting to me, and I just think they are very cute.
Harlekin is made after an old Steiff design. I love that his colors look a bit faded as if he were vintage.
Others buy clothes, shoes, cosmetics, accessories, I buy beads and teddies 😉

Sources:
1. Rebekah Kaufmann: Cut from a different cloth - six of Steiff's lesser-known teddy bear fabrics. On: Teddy Bear Times & Friends, September 21,2020
2. The History of the Teddy Bear. On the Steiff website
3. Steiff Schulte: History. On the Steiff Schulte website
4. Sustainability promise. On the Steiff website
5. Susanne Decker: Steiff - die Stoffe. Auf: Steifftiere, ein Stück Kindheit (in German)

Sunday glimmers - Whiskey marmalade and rolls

You may have heard the word "glimmer" before. Glimmers in psychology are the opposite of triggers, small moments of peace or joy sparking positive feelings. Those can be completely simple things that you might not even notice consciously, but noticing and appreciating them can help your mental health.

I think that has become especially important in the last few years.
Do you also have the feeling the world has gone nuts?
I admit that I haven't always been able to escape doomscrolling myself, going from one bad news to the next. Often you don't even notice you're doing it, but as I'm already a pessimist by nature, I finally decided I needed to do something about it.
It sounds weird, but not being able to craft as much anymore as I used to due to my stupid thumb actually helped me with it, much to my own surprise. The crafting itself is not the problem of course, but what I watched/listened to sometimes while crafting.
Now I got back into blogging, I got back into being more conscious about just having one device on, as you know I'm working on my attention span, and most important, I'm reading a lot more again.

Unfortunately that doesn't mean I have suddenly become less pessimistic about the state of the world, it would have been a miracle for that to happen.
To fight that even more, I am trying to appreciate my glimmers more consciously, like putting my book or laptop away when Gundel is lying on me which happens quite a lot right now, der Dekan draping over me like a piece of sushi purring softly, the arrival of a new pack of vintage needles, a bird singing, finding a pretty flower, or the other day a moment of utter silence (hard to find if you have tinnitus).

I don't think this will become a permanent feature on my blog, but I might share every, now and then.
Last week, for example, I felt very uneasy for different reasons (mostly the news and I didn't even see that much). Then the parcel guy turned up with a parcel I had known of, but had forgotten completely about. It was a surprise parcel by an online friend (whom I wish I could meet in person).
This little fellow was what I unpacked first and I couldn't help smiling. How adorable is that for a greeting?

There was more, though (stressing "was" as not all of it is there anymore).

I still remember the first time I had whiskey marmalade. I got myself a few small glasses of different marmalade when I visited London for the first time and fell in love with the combo of shortbread with whiskey marmalade.
This one is thick cut and I absolutely love it!
As luck would have it, I had just got some handmade whole-grain bread rolls from my neighbor and the last one left was the perfect combination with it for today's breakfast.

A very yummy Sunday glimmer!

Silent movies - The Lodger: A Story From the London Fog

Today we are going to jump to yet another genre within my silent movie "project" - crime.
The movie is "The Lodger: A Story From the London Fog" from 1927 which, despite being Alfred Hitchcock's third film, is regarded as the first one that's truly Hitchcockian.
I watched it on YouTube here.

"The Lodger" is based on the 1913 novel with the same title written by Marie Belloc Lowndes and inspired by the Jack the Ripper murders of 1888.

Public domain via Wikimedia

The film starts with a young blonde woman screaming.
Next you see an advertisement for a show called "Golden Curls" before you see the woman on the ground, murdered, a note pinned to her coat saying "The Avenger" in a triangle.
A witness describes the murderer she has seen, tall, the lower half of his face hidden by a scarf.
The woman has become the seventh blonde victim of the serial killer who always strikes on a Tuesday.

Next we go to the house of the Buntings and their daughter Daisy, a mannequin. Joe, the policeman who's in love with Daisy, is visiting.
Then a mysterious looking man hiding half of his face under a scarf is turning up at the door asking to rent a room. When shown to the room, he insists on the portraits of blonde ladies to be taken off the wall as they "get on his nerves".

Over time, the lodger seems more and more suspicious to the Buntings and Joe who has been assigned to "The Avenger" case, but can't prevent the eighth murder.
Mrs. Bunting's reason is the lodger going out late at night and another victim being found the next day, also he has locked a cabinet in his room. Mr. Bunting gets nervous when he buys a dress for Daisy as a gift and Joe can't stand the lodger and Daisy obviously being drawn to one another.
So they try to keep Daisy away from the lodger, but she won't have that and goes on a late night date with him which is interrupted by Joe whom she then tells she never wants to see him again.

When they are home again, Joe turns up with some colleagues to search the lodger's room. In the locked cabinet they find a gun, newspaper clippings about "The Avenger", a map of the murder sites, and the portrait of a blonde girl.
The lodger explains that it's his murdered sister, but Joe arrests him, anyway. The lodger escapes, handcuffed, and when Daisy finds him, he tells her the story of his sister and how his mother urged him on her deathbed to not rest until justice is done.
Daisy takes him to a pub and gives him brandy to warm him up, but his hands being hidden raise suspicion, even more so after they leave and Joe comes in to call the station to tell them about the escape. An angry mob forms hunting after the lodger and beating him despite Daisy and Joe, who has been given the information that "The Avenger" has been arrested, trying to defend him. Only when a paper boy turns up with the news, the mob lets go of him and he falls into Daisy's arms.

In the end, we see the lodger, Daisy, and her parents at his grand house, living happily ever after, no doubt.

I think I wanted to like the movie more than I actually did because so many people praise its brilliance. It might have had to do with my watching it while being sick. Although it's not extremely long, I couldn't even make it through in one go, possibly because I didn't feel good, possibly because I found some scenes to be too long for my liking and not very relatable.
If I thought my lodger could be a serial killer with a blonde girl obsession, would I want him to live in my house where my blonde daughter lives as well?
Where does Daisy take that blind faith in him from? Why is she so sure he's innocent? On the other hand, I feel Joe - whom I didn't like much throughout the movie - only arrests the lodger out of jealousy. The gun, map, newspaper clippings or even the portrait don't prove much, he could just be a person obsessed with true crime like all the others greedily waiting for news on the case. If his sister was the first victim, was he never mentioned in the case files or didn't Joe even read those?
Why didn't the lodger go to the police instead of insisting to bring the killer down himself? I'm sure his mother would have been okay with that.

Someone wrote that the "second part felt more like a romance than a mystery or thriller" and I agree.
The lodger looked very soulful and haunted and I wasn't even surprised that he wasn't the murderer in the end. To me, it would have been more of a plot twist if he had been.
It is said that Hitchcock had actually planned the lodger to be the murderer, but that the studio thought that Ivor Novello, who was a matinee idol, couldn't possibly be. There couldn't even be an ambiguous ending and to be honest, I found the happy ending a bit flat although I should have been happy for the young lovers, I guess.

What I liked were the use of light and shadow, angles, and effects which Hitchcock brought to perfection throughout his career, but for me they weren't enough to support the plot.

A note on the score for the version I watched. It was commissioned for the restored movie and is by Nitin Sawhney. I found it worked very well in some scenes, but an absolute no go for me was the singing in two scenes, that just didn't fit in there.

I don't know, maybe I would feel different watching it with a clear head a second time. I'll let you know if I try again.

Sources:
1. Matt Buchholz: Week 28: The Lodger (1927), Contradicting Myself, and Sound. On: Hitchcock 52, July 15, 2016
2. Christina Wehner: The Lodger (1927). On: Christina Wehner - Classic movies, musicals, old books, and the Great American Songbook, August, 13, 2018
3. Sam Wigley: Then and now: The Lodger reviewed. On: British Film Institute - Features, August 10, 2012
4. Philip Kemp: The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog: The first true Hitchcock movie. On: The Criterion Collection - Essay, June 27, 2017

Springtime in Paris - Mrs. 'arris Goes to Paris

First of all, let me admit that I'm cheating twice with this post. It's inspired by the Springtime in Paris event that Erin from Still Life, With Cracker Crumbs and Lisa from Boondock Ramblings have on their blogs this spring.
Not all of the movies are available to me, though. For tomorrow, Erin and Lisa have planned to watch the 2022 movie "Mrs. Harris Goes to Paris" with Lesley Manville. I've seen some of that on TV, but not the whole movie, and I can't really remember all the details.
So, instead I went back 30 years before that movie and watched the TV movie "Mrs. 'arris Goes to Paris" (notice the tiny difference?) with the wonderful Angela Lansbury.
Being the rebel I am, I also don't post this on the same day as Thursday is my silent movie day, and being weird the way I am, I don't like to post twice on one day, I'm here today.

"Mrs. 'arris Goes to Paris" is based on Paul Gallico's book of the same title, at least in the USA. In the UK, the title was changed to "Flowers for Mrs Harris". I couldn't find out why although both titles make sense, also not why the apostrophe was dropped which referred to Mrs. Harris' dialect. I found the book on the Internet Archive and gave it a quick read as it is only 157 pages.
You can find the movie on YouTube, not the best quality, but watchable.

So, who is Mrs. Harris and why does she go to Paris?
Ada Harris is a hardworking London charwoman with a circle of wealthy clients.

After a short introduction of her and her friend Vi, also a char, on the bus, you see her arriving at Lady Dant's house where she finds two Dior gowns hanging on the wardrobe from which Lady Dant wants to choose one for the new Queen's coronation ball.
Mrs. Harris is blown away and asks how much a gown like that costs and is told it's £450 (I did a little check, in 1953 that would have been around $1260 which may give you an idea).
From now on Mrs. Harris is obsessed by the idea to own a dress by Dior. After winning the football pools, not the jackpot unfortunately, she feels she's off to a good start and begins scrimping and saving, denying herself pleasures like going to the movies or the pub.
It takes her three years to save up. Her plan is to fly to Paris, buy a dress and fly back the same evening.
She makes it to Dior and gets rejected by the manageress Madame Colbert, but her tears make Madame change her mind and she gets her a seat at the afternoon show, much to the resentment of the director and a wealthy customer. Her seat neighbor is a Marquis who's enchanted by her (being reminded of the kind char at the English school he attended when he was young) and who approves of Madame's refusal to remove her when the director demands it.
Mrs. Harris chooses an opulent pink dress shown by head model Natasha, but is devastated upon hearing that it will take a week to make it because she doesn't have the money to stay in Paris. Mme Colbert and Natasha convince André, the house's accountant who happens to be in love with Natasha, to let her stay with him.
However, the fittings have to be done in secret to avoid the director.
From there on, Mrs. Harris has an impact on all of her new friends' lives. She brings the Marquis and his daughter and granddaughter together again, she helps Natasha and André find their love for each other, and with the help of the Marquis she achieves acknowledgement for Mme Colbert's husband who died in the war as a member of the French resistance.
When the dress is ready, though, the director catches them out and orders her to leave and the dress to be destroyed.
Of course, her friends at Dior don't let her down and contact the Marquis who then goes to Christian Dior himself.
The last problem is that no one told Mrs. Harris about customs for which she of course doesn't have the money, but they also find a solution for that by advising her to simply tell the truth. Instead of a Dior carton, they put the dress in a cheap suitcase, and when Mrs. Harris tells the customs agent she has a Dior dress in there, he doesn't believe her and therefore doesn't even open the suitcase.
In the end, you see her hanging up the dress in her flat remembering Paris and the party her friends gave her - even if Vi doesn't believe her.

I have always loved Angela Lansbury (despite only having seen about two episodes of "Murder, She Wrote") and I think she was great for this part.
This isn't a deep movie, this is a bowl of comforting hot soup on a cold day, it celebrates kindness generating kindness, and for that I really like it.

You know there's a but now, don't you?
Let's compare it to the book and you will see that the movie strays here and there.
- In the book, Mrs. Harris goes to the dog races after winning the pools and puts £50 on a dog called "Haute Couture" which she regards as a sign. She loses, but shortly after she finds a diamond pin and gets a reward of £25, and that is a sign for her to keep saving, but not depend on luck. In the movie, there's just the diamond pin.
- In the book, there's no director whom they have to hide from.
- Madame Colbert's husband isn't dead. He works for the Foreign Office and never gets a promotion despite his good work. Mrs. Harris tells the Marquis about it and he can help with that.
- The Marquis mentions children who are "scattered and far removed". You don't get to see any of them, there is no reuniting scene. He and Mrs. Harris do talk about her love to flowers, especially geraniums, though.
- In the movie, Natasha has an abusive rich boyfriend who gets punched by André when he insults Natasha which then makes her realize she loves André. In the book, there's no boyfriend. André is in love with Natasha and she falls in love with him quickly, but they both think it's not mutual and don't dare saying anything until Mrs. Harris comes right out with it.
- The dress is completely different (in each movie I have seen, by the way). It is mentioned that it is a dress meant for a much younger woman, but it doesn't have Cinderella quality. In the book it's not puffy and it's from black velvet with jet beads - which I'm a sucker for, so I would really have liked to see that! - with the top being a froth of cream, pink and white chiffon, tulle, and lace.
- The biggest difference, however, in this movie is the happy ending. In the book (and other movies), Mrs. Harris lends the dress to one of her clients for one night, a budding actress who wants to impress a producer. Huge mistake. There's an accident and the dress gets burned badly. The actress goes off for a week without even leaving a real apology or any compensation.
Mrs. Harris goes home, hides the dress away in the suitcase because she can't bear looking at it longer and weeps until she gets disturbed by the insistent ringing of her doorbell. She opens the door to a messenger who brings her loads of boxes full of beautiful flowers (that's why I said both titles make sense) sent by her friends from Paris.
That's when she decides not having the dress repaired because what she has gained is not a dress, it's friendship, memories, experience, adventure, and love - and no one can take that from her.

So yeah, all of that is missing from this movie and maybe Angela Lansbury could have been a bit rougher around the edges, a bit grittier, a bit less glamorous looking at the end, but hey, sometimes a bowl of hot soup is just the thing you need.
Not deep, no big moral, just a bit of joy for everyone.