Susan's Scribblings the Blog

A writer from the Philadelphia area shares the week online.
Susan's Scribblings the Blog
  • Who the Heck is Kayewer?
  • Tag: movies

    • You Can Keep Your Nakatomi Tower

      Posted at 6:10 pm by kayewer, on December 13, 2025

      This past week I have seen a few social media references to the 1988 film Die Hard being a holiday movie most popular around Christmas. The film is set around the holidays and has thus become action aficionados’ best present to themselves on television during the year-end broadcasting festivities.

      Not to be outdone, another post appeared in my feed about something I had not realized before: that December 11 is considered “Psycho Day” in the quaint city of Phoenix, Arizona. The mayor at the time, Thelda Williams, made the date official in 2018, and people are now asking if Alfred Hitchcock’s classic thriller is also considered a holiday film.

      The city of Phoenix was the backdrop for the movie’s action, which opens with a timeline of Friday, December 11 at 2:43 PM. Phoenix was decorated for Christmas in several shots featuring actress Janet Leigh and the cast before her doomed character of Marion Crane sets off to meet a ghastly fate (no spoilers here: not every human being reading this has seen the movie).

      The film itself began principal photography on November 11, 1959, meaning the cast and crew were rolling film just before Christmas. Janet Leigh herself has said in quotes that she spent seven days filming her crucial scene in a small bathroom set. Hitchcock himself oversaw everything and kept only a limited crew on hand for the most vital roles. What a Christmas present to get out of there.

      Also, December 11 did fall on Friday during filming in 1959. I know, because I looked it up.

      So, when deep diving into such a subject, the question becomes whether it matters.

      For me, this movie serves a few distinctive purposes. I was a newborn when the filming began (I probably wasn’t out of the hospital yet, as they kept new moms there for a few days back then) and didn’t see it until over a decade after it was released in theatres in 1960. My first viewing was on 1970s evening television. I was probably too young for a PG movie with that type of content (it was rated M for mature audiences at first release). It was quite a shocker, and I consigned it to my “one and done” viewing list of classics (up there with less than a handful of films such as Saving Private Ryan). I still followed up over the years and know a lot about it, but I probably will not view it again in my lifetime.

      When a film has elements of the holidays in them, is it a holiday film? My opinion is this: if you like to watch movies with holiday references in them during the holidays, it’s fine. It may not be Christmas classic material, but even a scary movie can contain elements of the season.

      Phoenix residents capitalize on the tourism aspect of the movie’s success, because quite a few of the landmarks in the scenic parts of the movie’s establishing shots are still present in town, particularly the Westward Ho tower which appears prominently, along with a half dozen other historic buildings still standing. Not to mention Arizona’s natural beauty surrounding the city.

      In Phoenix the film first screened on August 11, 1960, at a theater which is apparently still in business as well. People nationwide allegedly fainted at screenings, and film students are regularly given Hitchcock’s classic canon to examine in detail and see what makes it hold up.

      In this case, Psycho is still relevant after 65 years. The movie has earned a position of historic significance and is preserved in the National Film Registry. It has outlived its characters, its director, and appears on cable at least once on classic networks such as TCM around Halloween time mostly, but not at Christmas. It’s no more a true holiday movie than any of the Harry Potter films are, even when Hogwarts is decked out with trees and floating candles. No matter.

      And speaking of Harry Potter/Die Hard actor Alan Rickman, I’m not sure if Mr. Rickman’s plummet off Nakatomi Tower or Maltin Balsam’s detective Arbogast’s fate on the Bates house’s staircase was more exciting or gruesome, but whichever you watch on your TV, enjoy. It’s all good during the holidays.

      Share this:

      • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
      Like Loading...
      Posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments | Tagged alfred-hitchcock, christmas, film, horror, movies, phoenix-az
    • Rated Extraneous

      Posted at 1:54 pm by kayewer, on April 13, 2025

      I just read an article about the movie ratings assigned by the motion picture industry, from the perspective of the ratings’ relevancy in today’s entertainment world.

      The original rating system was introduced in 1968 as a way to inform parents of the suitability of a movie’s contents for young children. Before that, Hollywood was under the watchful eye of the “Hays Code,” which was designed as a type of “Ten Commandments” of forbidden depictions in moviemaking. Among them were nudity (adults and children), swearing/cussing, mixed race relationships, white slavery, sexual hygiene and childbirth, racism and drugs. Oh, and the clergy couldn’t be spoken ill of, either.

      The Motion Picture Association or MPA, (which included “of America” until 2019), created the rating system we now know to make it easier to choose movies for families or adults. The challenges which reshaped the system–one of the most noted being the addition of PG-13 after the release of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom due to some borderline violence touching the PG line in the sand–have tweaked the original four classifications. We now have five ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17) and a variety of descriptive text to include mild, fantasy or extreme violence, language, drugs and alcohol and sexual content as means of parental guidance as to what their children may experience during the movie.

      The article points out that, unfortunately, many young people feel that the ratings system is a plot by adults to deprive them of what they conceptualize as a “better” form of entertainment. Young people will purchase a ticket for a PG-13 film, then sneak into the R-rated movie. I know from firsthand experience–not in a theatre, but watching a film on TV not suitable for me at a particular age–that this practice can be mentally damaging. In a rush to grow up, theatres are accidentally releasing rule-breaking teens sporting mental scratches and dents out into the world with a perspective they may not have been ready for, because there isn’t a system in place to make sure they “got what they paid for.”

      This came to light recently when the Terrifier franchise (known for extreme violence) released another movie this past winter and the packed houses were not always filled with age-appropriate paying customers.

      The best solution may be to keep a certain classification of movies on one side of a multiplex, so that youngsters headed in that direction would be immediately obvious. Another may be to set up a ticket scanner at the door to each auditorium which the attendee must swipe in addition to their original admission in the lobby. The door would then open for them to enter the auditorium.

      The classification system is still relevant. Children still need some protections in place to shield them from things they may not be mature enough to witness. This is a job all grown-ups take on when we come of age. It is a responsibility to the future generations and mankind in general to allow children to grow at the pace set for them by natural order, and introduce new concepts when they are ready to receive them. Our society has become so lax and liberal, that youngsters do not seem to be blocked from anything that may harm them; true crime documentary channels are not for four-year-olds. Forget that it’s cable or steaming, and remember that you control the remote.

      Share this:

      • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
      Like Loading...
      Posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments | Tagged Books, film, mental-health, movies, mpa-ratings, parenting
    • My Awards Show Has a First Name

      Posted at 2:55 pm by kayewer, on January 6, 2024

      This morning I cracked open my Sunday supplement copy of the New York Times (yes, I read an actual hard copy newspaper: three, in fact) to find the first section devoted to the biggest award of the season, the Academy Awards. Naturally I began to look, and I was disappointed but not surprised by the articles and ads begging the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences (AMPAS) to consider certain productions for nomination.

      When the movie industry began, it seems that every motion picture was simply produced to entertain the general public. It was a baby industry learning to walk before it needed to talk, and even when “talkies” came to the theatres people were aghast at the concept of adding sound. Which is what parents have also complained about since time immemorial.

      Eventually movies found themselves being categorized into romance, drama, horror and musical and such, but still anybody who had a few coins in their pockets could enjoy a movie (and often receive a free snack). Those were the days of news reels and travelogues, when information was sent out in any way possible. The filming of events overseas were duplicated and sent to what must have been hundreds or even thousands of screening houses. A visit to the movies was an experience for everybody. Children were exposed to general grammar, and foreigners could even learn English as a second language.

      When the turnaround happened, I’m not certain, but sometime after the 1970s and the dawn of summer blockbusters, the films considered for awards began to shift from movies everybody could watch to art house productions produced by a certain class of people and which only selected people saw. The feel of the events shifted from the general public to the micro percentage of the population.

      Two of the Times’ staff–Manohla Dargis and Alissa Wilkinson–provided a comparison of who and what they considered the best films for consideration. The only films I recognized in the listings are Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. The former was released in the summer and enjoyed the distinction of popularity with a film apparently released for the general public: Barbie. Nowhere did Barbie get a suggested best picture nomination. The latter film came out in the last half of the year. Which seems to be the norm for this new ritual: the films nobody got to see are released at the end of the year to be fresh in the minds of those who did see them, and the rest of the year be damned.

      The other films listed for a hopeful place in history have never appeared on a movie screen in my area (except perhaps one AMC with the reputation for art house fare from its past incarnations which it cannot abandon). Movies with tiles such as May December, Menus-Plaisirs – Les Troisgros, The Taste of Things and Asteroid City left me scratching my head. One is based on a true story about an older woman’s affair with a tween boy. One is a documentary film in French (English subtitles) about a renowned Michelin star restaurant, so why it would be considered for Best Picture rather than Best Documentary or Foreign Film is beyond me. Another is a romantic story about food (again), this time a cook and her gourmet employer, and the last is a dramedy about UFOs.

      These are movies that most people would not see. The “general public” has become the recipients of mass market pabulum, while the few percent attend the art houses and generally have the biggest say in anything to do with awards. Barbie is meaningless as a film to be memorialized, but it is possible that its director, Greta Gerwig, may be honored for her work on the project. The exclusivity of it all takes away from what the movie industry was designed for; not just entertainment, but enlightening the general public. We no longer need newsreels in the cinema, but we do need something to stimulate our brains.

      Of course I realize that the ordinary people out there wouldn’t want to see a film with subtitles, but I would consider seeing anything if I knew it existed first. The isolated publicity behind these films are keeping them away from even the curious. That isn’t fair if they also have some money in their pockets.

      A friend asked me if I would be willing to watch the Golden Globes, which tends to be a precursor to what pictures and persons win at the Academy Awards. Sure, I said. I’ll watch.

      But I will still be scratching my head.

      Share this:

      • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
      Like Loading...
      Posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments | Tagged academy awards, barbie, film, movie, movie reviews, movies, oscars
    • Feedback

      Eden's avatarEden on Getting the Message
      Eden's avatarEden on The Unasked Questions
      Eden's avatarEden on And Her Shoes Were #9
      Eden's avatarEden on The Poison Field
      Eden's avatarEden on Final Tally

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Susan's Scribblings the Blog
    • Join 32 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Susan's Scribblings the Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d