"The Best Old Movies for Families: A Guide to Watching Together" - new book by Ty Burr
leno...@yahoo.com
Review
"Every parent has asked for Ty Burr's book. Every movie-mad child will
steal it from the parents. This is a guide to classic movies for kids,
written with verve, humor, and pep. A winner."
-David Thomson, author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film
"A treasure, a delight, and quite possibly a marriage-saver as well.
Ty Burr's advice on when, how, and even why to share with our children
the movies we cherish from our own youth is funny, hip, and wise. My
ten-year-old stole the book right out of my hands." -Julia Glass,
National Book Award-Winning Author of Three Junes
"Terrific, necessary, and carried out with integrity, intelligence,
sensitivity, and totally without condescension. Ty Burr's book can
lead to a lot of pleasure-of the life-long kind." -Peter Bogdanovich
Book Description
If a child can watch Barney, can't that same child also enjoy watching
Charlie Chaplin or the Marx Brothers? And as they get older, wouldn't
they grow to like screwball comedies (His Girl Friday), women's
weepies (Imitation of Life), and westerns (The Searchers)? The answer
is that they'll follow because they'll have learned that "old" does
not necessarily mean "next channel, please."
Here is an impassioned and eminently readable guide that introduces
the delights of the golden age of movies. Ty Burr has come up with a
winning prescription for children brought up on Hollywood junk food.
FOR THE LITTLE ONES (Ages 3-6): Fast-paced movies that are simple
without being unsophisticated, plainspoken without being dumbed down.
Singin' in the Rain and Bringing Up Baby are perfect.
FOR THE ONES IN BETWEEN (Ages 7-12): "Killer stories," placing easily
grasped characters in situations that start simply and then throw
curveballs. The African Queen and Some Like It Hot do the job well.
FOR THE OLDER ONES (Ages 13+): Burr recommends relating old movies to
teens' contemporary favorites: without Hitchcock, there could be no
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, without Brando, no Johnny Depp.
Lenona.
W. Lydecker
BABY.
"Mommy, would Rover bury an intercostal clavicle?"
David Oberman
When I think of a 5-year-old watching "Bringing Up Baby" or, even
more, "His Girl Friday" (also mentioned in that story), I picture
those Sunday Kliban comics where the dog is shown in one cell (titled
"What We Say To Dogs"), sitting obediently & listening to the Mr.:
"Now, Ginger, you were very good yesterday; but today's a different
story because you tore up the trash & ran around the yard with it,
which disappoints me to no end, let me tell you, Ginger"; & in the
next cell (titled "What They Actually Hear"), from Ginger's
perspective: "blah blah, GINGER, blah blah blah blah; blah blah blah
blah blah blah, blah blah blah, GINGER"
____
There are 6 & a half billion people on this planet.
And not one of them arrived here voluntarily. Not one.
-- On why I hate selfishness
tyb...@mindspring.com
Obviously you don't know the right 5-year-olds. They get enough, and
what they miss they pick up the second time around. And if they don't
want a second time around, they let you know it and back you go to the
Disney brain death.
But as I recall, Waldo Lydecker didn't like children very much.
T.
W. Lydecker
I would feel a pang of sadness if your children were devoured by
wolves.
p.s. My cousin Belvedere, has quite the proper touch with tykes.
tyb...@mindspring.com
A right cereal killer, as I recall.
Howard Brazee
discuss that big cats are dangerous (a zookeeper just got killed by a
jaguar in our local (Denver) zoo), I find them to be more interested
in the fact that the actors smoked.
And I do explain that getting drunk was something people did back then
and driving drunk is dangerous.
Matt Barry
<leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172851485.7...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> In Amazon (no customer reviews yet):
>
>
> Review
> "Every parent has asked for Ty Burr's book. Every movie-mad child will
> steal it from the parents. This is a guide to classic movies for kids,
> written with verve, humor, and pep. A winner."
> -David Thomson, author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film
>
> "A treasure, a delight, and quite possibly a marriage-saver as well.
> Ty Burr's advice on when, how, and even why to share with our children
> the movies we cherish from our own youth is funny, hip, and wise. My
> ten-year-old stole the book right out of my hands." -Julia Glass,
> National Book Award-Winning Author of Three Junes
>
> "Terrific, necessary, and carried out with integrity, intelligence,
> sensitivity, and totally without condescension. Ty Burr's book can
> lead to a lot of pleasure-of the life-long kind." -Peter Bogdanovich
>
> Book Description
> If a child can watch Barney, can't that same child also enjoy watching
> Charlie Chaplin or the Marx Brothers?
This sounds suspect right from the start. Insipid tripe like Barney compared
to Chaplin and the Marx Bros? That's like saying if a child can look at a
connect the dots drawing, they should immediately be able to grasp and fully
appreciate Picasso.
> And as they get older, wouldn't
> they grow to like screwball comedies (His Girl Friday), women's
> weepies (Imitation of Life), and westerns (The Searchers)?
I'm glad to see they're not just showcasing films that are adaptations of
literary works that will be studied in jr. high school English classes.
>The answer
> is that they'll follow because they'll have learned that "old" does
> not necessarily mean "next channel, please."
>
> Here is an impassioned and eminently readable guide that introduces
> the delights of the golden age of movies. Ty Burr has come up with a
> winning prescription for children brought up on Hollywood junk food.
>
> FOR THE LITTLE ONES (Ages 3-6): Fast-paced movies that are simple
> without being unsophisticated, plainspoken without being dumbed down.
> Singin' in the Rain and Bringing Up Baby are perfect.
Ages 3-6? BRINGING UP BABY? Really? I can't quite imagine a 3-6 year old
being able to follow the machine-gun paced dialogue, among other things in
the film.
>
> FOR THE ONES IN BETWEEN (Ages 7-12): "Killer stories," placing easily
> grasped characters in situations that start simply and then throw
> curveballs. The African Queen and Some Like It Hot do >the job well.
These might work. SOME LIKE IT HOT in particular has a good pace to it that
would help keep younger viewers involved in the story.
>
> FOR THE OLDER ONES (Ages 13+): Burr recommends relating old movies to
> teens' contemporary favorites: without Hitchcock, there could be no
> The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, without Brando, no Johnny Depp.
>
> Lenona.
>
That's nice...if Hitchcock did nothing else, at least he paved the way for
THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and countless other mindless slasher flicks.
What nonsense. What about VERTIGO, or THE 39 STEPS, or THE LADY VANISHES, or
REAR WINDOW?
This is one book I'll definitely have to pass on.
--
Matt Barry
Visit my pages at:
http://mbarry84.tripod.com
http://filmreel.blogspot.com
leno...@yahoo.com
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/03/01/turning_old_movies_into_new_family_fun/
And four more - all worth reading:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&tab=gn&q=%22ty+burr%22+%22Best+Old+Movies%22
And, to use a few old stories I heard of:
In 1998:
"My daughters fell right in with the spirit of All About Eve and
laughed and laughed, and they're ten and twelve."
In 2001:
"Last Friday, before leaving for Winter break, I did something I had
not done all school year - I showed my students a video for fun.
"I chose Buster Keaton's "One Week" because it seemed like something
they might like. Well, they more than liked it - they loved it! They
laughed almost non-stop for 20 minutes, and couldn't stop talking
about the film on the way out the door. They understood it perfectly,
and I simply can't think of a time when I have heard more laughter in
the classroom."
(For anyone who doesn't know, Keaton was a big inspiration to Jackie
Chan, and some little kids might prefer Keaton to Charlie Chaplin
because he's more "modern.")
Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
> > FOR THE OLDER ONES (Ages 13+): "Burr recommends relating old movies to
> > teens' contemporary favorites: without Hitchcock, there could be no
> > The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, without Brando, no Johnny Depp."
> That's nice...if Hitchcock did nothing else, at least he paved the way for
> THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and countless other mindless slasher flicks.
> What nonsense. What about VERTIGO, or THE 39 STEPS, or THE LADY VANISHES, or
> REAR WINDOW?
>
> This is one book I'll definitely have to pass on.
> --
> Matt Barry
Um, if you're talking to jaded teens who have never seen any movie
made before they were born, isn't it wise to stick to comparing old
movies to movies they HAVE seen? Until, at least, they say: "That
Hitchcock we just saw wasn't bad. What else did he do that's just as
good?"
BTW, I didn't see "Mary Poppins" until I was grown up, because I was
born before the VCR, when you didn't see Disney movies unless they
were at a local revival theatre. By the time I did, I thought it was
just too loud and annoying - mainly because I'd already read three of
the books, which are not only relatively low-key, but also present MP
as a no-nonsense, sarcastic Cockney who never gives hugs. Of course,
the kids adore her anyway because they never knew when a magical
adventure would happen - though MP always denies anything strange ever
happened.
Lenona.
David Oberman
>In 1998:
>
>"My daughters fell right in with the spirit of All About Eve and
>laughed and laughed, and they're ten and twelve."
Obviously, the daughters--AND the mom--had no idea what was actually
happening in "All About Eve." (Have any of you ever "laughed &
laughed" at it?)
____
Rostropovich & Richter.
-- Friends forever
Matt Barry
<leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172947008....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > FOR THE OLDER ONES (Ages 13+): "Burr recommends relating old movies to
>> > teens' contemporary favorites: without Hitchcock, there could be no
>> > The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, without Brando, no Johnny Depp."
>
>> That's nice...if Hitchcock did nothing else, at least he paved the way
>> for
>> THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and countless other mindless slasher flicks.
>> What nonsense. What about VERTIGO, or THE 39 STEPS, or THE LADY VANISHES,
>> or
>> REAR WINDOW?
>>
>> This is one book I'll definitely have to pass on.
>> --
>> Matt Barry
>
>
> Um, if you're talking to jaded teens who have never seen any movie
> made before they were born, isn't it wise to stick to comparing old
> movies to movies they HAVE seen? Until, at least, they say: "That
> Hitchcock we just saw wasn't bad. What else did he do that's just as
> good?"
<snip>
> Lenona.
>
>
I do agree with what you're saying to an extent. I guess I just feel like
great films like REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO, PSYCHO, etc. can all stand on their
own. If an open-minded teenager comes across one of these films on TV, it
would surely make an impression on them the way it has on moviegoers for
half a century.
But I also think that if a young person is so close-minded as to not watch
something in black and white or because the hair styles look different or
what have you, then they'd just rather watch "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"
rather than attempt to learn about what "inspired" those films.
Additionally, I don't understand why Hitchcock would get pegged as a horror
filmmaker when he spent most of his 50 years in cinema directing suspense
films. I would think that even if someone was impressed with the "slasher"
elements found in PSYCHO, they'd be disappointed when they found very little
other of those elements in, say, VERTIGO or SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
tyb...@mindspring.com
obviously), it's funny to watch people twist themselves into miffed
knots based on the *press release*. As an author, I recognize all the
stuff you're citing as the PR department's dumbed-down version of
what's in the book. I'm not wild about it either but supposedly they
know what they're doing and, anyway, that part's out of my hands.
Not to worry: There's a whole section on Hitchcock, with Vertigo, 39
Steps, Lady Vanishes, Rear Window, and most of the rest discussed. But
you're not the audience for the book, so don't worry about it.
I'm pretty fascinated by the elitism revealed in some of the comments
here, though. Kids shouldn't watch "Bringing Up Baby" because they
won't pick up the nuances? What silliness. Of course they'll miss the
nuances but they'll still have a great time -- I've seen it happen
with my own eyes -- and they can dig all the Hawksian thematic motifs
when they come back to in later years. But I almost guarantee they
won't come back in later years unless they learn B&W isn't a dirty
word early.
Besides, they tend to surprise you. My 9-year-old has seen almost
every Hitchcock movie except for the most violent ones (Psycho/Birds/
Frenzy), and what's the one she'll watch over and over, the one she
takes as her own personal favorite? Vertigo. I didn't make that
decision; she did.
Or maybe you'd rather keep these movies for yourselves?
Sorry for sticking my nose into a newsgroup where I'm probably not
wanted. But wanted to put my 2 cents in.
Ty
Jared
> But I also think that if a young person is so close-minded as to not watch
> something in black and white or because the hair styles look different or
> what have you, then they'd just rather watch "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"
> rather than attempt to learn about what "inspired" those films.
I hope we're talking about the remake. The original is thirty years
old which is positively ancient in this context.
leno...@yahoo.com
> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >In 1998:
>
> >"My daughters fell right in with the spirit of All About Eve and
> >laughed and laughed, and they're ten and twelve."
>
> Obviously, the daughters--AND the mom--had no idea what was actually
> happening in "All About Eve." (Have any of you ever "laughed &
> laughed" at it?)
Well, it IS a satire. Not to mention that it probably reminded the
girls of similar, conniving classmates they knew. (Ever see "Mean
Girls"?)
Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
> Besides, they tend to surprise you. My 9-year-old has seen almost
> every Hitchcock movie except for the most violent ones (Psycho/Birds/
> Frenzy), and what's the one she'll watch over and over, the one she
> takes as her own personal favorite? Vertigo. I didn't make that
> decision; she did.
>Ty
Not to nitpick, but I remember very well the cries of outrage at my
college, years ago, when we were watching "Vertigo" for the first time
and James Stewart tells her to dye her hair and says something like
"surely it can't matter to you?" Not, of course, that the women in the
audience were fashionistas. They were just appalled at his outdated
arrogance, and I think that's the sort of thing that needs to be
pointed out to an impressionable small child who might be watching it
without a large audience. In the same vein, I remember the audience's
quieter - but still shocked - response to the scene in the 1931
"Frankenstein" where Dr. Frankenstein locks his bride in against her
will for her own safety.
Hope I can come see you on Wednesday!
Lenona.
tyb...@mindspring.com
Well, my kid was appalled, as was her sister, not so much because
Scotty's arrogance doesn't square with modern feminism but because
it's just morally wrong (and was meant to be so even then) and a shock
to their systems. For my kids, who have come to love and trust Jimmy
Stewart over the course of his filmography, "Vertigo" is very much a
tragedy about a Stewart character losing his way and making dreadful
(but understandable) decisions. Their sympathies are equally with
Madeleine, too. I think one of the reasons my youngest is fascinated
by the film is because it doesn't play by the rules of classic movies.
Rips them up, actually.
Ty
David Oberman
>Well, it IS a satire.
I find "Eve" a small-scale melodrama, not a satire, a character study
with some witty (or at least snappy) lines & cynicism; all in all, to
me the movie seems as stagily posed as Margot or Eve in that moldy
costume drama they fight over -- none of it is very believable to me
-- not the husband, not the playwright, not his wife, not the ingenue,
not the personal assistant, & not even the producer (he doesn't even
belch at the kitchen sink realistically) -- except Bette Davis has
great style & voice & her personality is more 'real' than all the rest
of the grinding construct. Probably the funniest thing to me is that
Thelma Todd is named Birdie (also Todd's hilarious description of the
sad-sack tale: "Everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear
end!). I hate to sound so lukewarm on such a beloved classic -- it
pisses people off. But it's Usenet, after all.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
I don't agree with your observations but that is OK.
However, Birdie was played by the great Thelma Ritter.
--
Frank in Seattle
____
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
David Oberman
>I don't agree with your observations but that is OK.
You're in the majority!
>However, Birdie was played by the great Thelma Ritter.
Ah yes thanks Frank. "Todd" slipped out & I didn't proof it. I think I
had "Hollywood Babylon" on the brain this morning.
leno...@yahoo.com
"I bought this book expecting to just be instructed, and came away
thoroughly entertained and entralled. Full of verve and funny but
telling observations, this is one of the best written books I have
read in years. Part culture critique, part movie review, part parental
memoir, all written with energy, subtlety, and great humor. I laughed
out loud many times. How can one be hip and parental at the same time?
I don't know, but this book pulls it off. My only complaint is that
this book undersells itself, as if it were just some reference book
one should dip into for particular movies. It is just a rollicking
good read, and one learns about a lot more than movies along the way.
So well-written that you have to wonder whether Ty Burr's time might
not be better spent writing some movie scripts, so we can have modern
movies with characters whose dialogue crackles like this book's
sentences do."
-Einer Elhauge.
I'm about halfway through it (as he makes clear, there's no need to
read the chapters in any order).
Some points of his:
-A casual approach to old movies in general is essential. Don't imply
"it's good for you." They'll treat it like awful medicine. Try putting
a Chaplin movie on (with its music) as background noise when they're
very little and they'll start to notice it on their own.
-You'll have to deal with sticky issues in movies otherwise suitable
for young ages. E.g., in "Stagecoach" just say the women don't like
Claire Trevor's character because they're mean. They'll figure it out
years later.
-Don't go to the kitchen for popcorn and leave the little ones alone
at random times if you haven't already seen the movie. Example:
certain scary scenes in "The Day the Earth Stood Still."
His book focuses on movies made (mostly) before 1965. One exception is
the French "Small Change" (1976).
More later - I have to go.
Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
makes sense, since the real issue is getting kids to love the old,
most famous classics and learning to avoid pitfalls, both big and
small. (No guarantees there, since every kid is different.)
One pitfall: Burr showed "Citizen Kane" to his older daughter, who was
7 or 8 at the time. The ending made her a little sad, but the 5-year-
old sister, who Burr thought wasn't really watching (she was playing
with her precious toys on the floor - hint, hint) looked up and burst
into tears - because she HAD been following the movie! Trouble was,
she said she'd never watch "that awful movie" again. So, that's why
even a movie that you know your 5-year-old can follow might be too
emotionally intense at that time - and even lead to a hatred that's
misguided. (Of course, she may change her mind later.)
Also, don't assume even a Shirley Temple movie is safe to show to kids
under 10, even aside from the racism that you know is likely to be
there - though I don't know anyone, young or old, who admits to being
a Temple fan! Burr cited "Poor Little Rich Girl" in particular. Read
the book to find out why.
And age 10 is maybe too late to get kids to laugh at Danny Kaye
movies.
More later -
Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
> There are no more than 200 movies actually listed, I think -
Closer to 250, actually.
For every movie covered in detail, Burr lists the selling point
("Casablanca": "Sacrifice is cool"), the age to start, the plot, why
the movie is in the book, certain explanations for the kids, and what
to show them after that as a follow-up.
Some minimum age levels he recommends:
Singin' in the Rain - age 4
Some Like it Hot - age 7
To Kill a Mockingbird - age 9
The Philadelphia Story - age 10
The Grapes of Wrath - age 10 (Burr says, however, that if you want to
teach kids about the Great Depression using movies, it's a good idea
to show them "My Man Godfrey" BEFORE "Grapes of Wrath." He explains
that in detail.)
Psycho - age 13 (among other things, as someone else pointed out, it
might not even click with kids too young to have encountered/read
about disturbed young teens or disturbed men.)
Splendor in the Grass - age 14 (I have to say that I loved old movies
in my teens, but I saw that one in my late teens and laughed all the
way through it - and I was ALONE. I can take it a little more
seriously now.)
Burr mentions how his wife's parents babysat their daughters (younger
one was 5 at the time or so) and found later they had rented "West
Side Story" and shown it to them. "Here, incidentally, is one of the
paradoxes of parenting: It's acceptable for you to show your kids
Freddy Meets Jason XXVI, but it's not OK for your parents or in-laws
to show them a Rugrats episode if it hasn't been submitted for
approval in triplicate. Well, they were fine......."
Lenona.
leno...@yahoo.com
http://www.randomhouse.com/anchor/features/bestoldmovies/index.html
New website!
Includes his daughters' reaction to Berkeley's "Dames."
Lenona.
> In Amazon (no customer reviews yet):
>
> Review
> "Every parent has asked for TyBurr'sbook. Every movie-mad child will
> steal it from the parents. This is a guide to classic movies for kids,
> written with verve, humor, and pep. A winner."
> -David Thomson, author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film
>
> "A treasure, a delight, and quite possibly a marriage-saver as well.
> TyBurr'sadvice on when, how, and even why to share with our children
> the movies we cherish from our own youth is funny, hip, and wise. My
> ten-year-old stole the book right out of my hands." -Julia Glass,
> National Book Award-Winning Author of Three Junes
>
> "Terrific, necessary, and carried out with integrity, intelligence,
> sensitivity, and totally without condescension. TyBurr'sbook can
> lead to a lot of pleasure-of the life-long kind." -Peter Bogdanovich
>
> Book Description
> If a child can watch Barney, can't that same child also enjoy watching
> Charlie Chaplin or the Marx Brothers? And as they get older, wouldn't
> they grow to like screwball comedies (His Girl Friday), women's
> weepies (Imitation of Life), and westerns (The Searchers)? The answer
> is that they'll follow because they'll have learned that "old" does
> not necessarily mean "next channel, please."
>
> Here is an impassioned and eminently readable guide that introduces
> the delights of the golden age of movies. TyBurrhas come up with a
> winning prescription for children brought up on Hollywood junk food.
>
> FOR THE LITTLE ONES (Ages 3-6): Fast-paced movies that are simple
> without being unsophisticated, plainspoken without being dumbed down.
> Singin' in the Rain and Bringing Up Baby are perfect.
>
> FOR THE ONES IN BETWEEN (Ages 7-12): "Killer stories," placing easily
> grasped characters in situations that start simply and then throw
> curveballs. The African Queen and Some Like It Hot do the job well.
>
> FOR THE OLDER ONES (Ages 13+):Burrrecommends relating old movies to
leno...@yahoo.com
I just thought these Goodreads reviews were worth reading.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/244620.The_Best_Old_Movies_for_Families
One review starts with:
"Bitter that I did not read this when it originally came out in 2007 when my kids were 6 & 9. It would have been such a great resource - ugh, so irritated! This is a perfect gift to give new parents. Really, anyone with kids under the age of 10 needs to go get this book..."
Lenona.