CSotD: Classical references
Skip to comments
When Mr. Hiram B. Otis, the American Minister, bought Canterville Chase, every one told him he was doing a very foolish thing, as there was no doubt at all that the place was haunted. Indeed, Lord Canterville himself, who was a man of the most punctilious honour, had felt it his duty to mention the fact to Mr. Otis when they came to discuss terms.
That's the beginning of Oscar Wilde's "the Canterville Ghost" but it certainly isn't the end of it, since IMDB lists a dozen or so film and TV versions, with another in development featuring the voices of Hugh Laurie and Stephen Frye.
I would assume, however, that today's Barney and Clyde is referencing the classic 1944 version which starred Charles Laughton in the title role, with Robert Young and Margaret O'Brien the other stars, and which merits the title of "definitive" simply by virtue of its supporting cast, which includes Reginald Owen, Una O'Connor, Frank Faylen, Mike Mazurki, Peter Lawford and even Tor Johnson in an uncredited role.
Which is to say, its supporting cast was stronger than the leads in most of those other versions, though Wilde's original was published in 1902 and this definitive version is set in World War II and so is no more true to the original than most Hollywood movies.
The party in today's strip is at the home of the couple who became ghosts and bedeviled poor Topper in another fun ghost movie that, in its definitive version, starred Cary Grant and Constance Bennett as the ghosts, better than which you cannot do, though sequels and a TV version tried.
And, speaking of films departing from the text, I would quibble that, in Irving's tale, the Headless Horseman was no ghost at all but simply the bully, Beau Brummell, (ed. Brom Bones, see comments) pranking the hapless schoolmaster.
However, I don't expect to get anywhere with that argument.
The point, if I had one, is that Weingarten includes references for which you probably need to be either pretty old or pretty hip, which is pretty daring.
But sometimes it's worth trolling for the smart set.
Though I gained my knowledge of 40s films from watching Dialing for Dollars on KWGN in the early 70s, which probably isn't as hip as having majored in cinema, I suppose.
For a slightly less esoteric cultural reference, we have today's Dick Tracy, and part of the fun with the new, improved Tracy is that I have no idea where they're going with this or if they're taking it anywhere at all or simply using it as a bumper between storylines.
However, I did remark to my granddaughters several years ago that we were having spinach and it would help them grow up to be strong like Popeye, to which they asked, "Who's Popeye?"
Being a grandfather brings with it certain responsibilities, which is why we have DVDs and Fantagraphics, but they can't help if you don't pitch in, people.
Meanwhile, back on the killing grounds
I'm on record as being tired of "thoughts and prayers" cartoons, but Jeff Stahler takes the phrase a direction that is not only fresh but relevant.
I'm certainly not opposed to interim measures, and I like Kal's cartoon, but there's a problem with those quick-fixes, which is that they're not apt to fix anything, not because they wouldn't work but because they won't happen.
He's right to encourage people to stand up. We should be furious with the NRA's societal treason that leads them to lobby for things that hurt our country.
And to repeat for those who came in late, I grew up around hunters, and was taught to shoot, and to handle guns safely under the NRA aegis, before they went mad in Cincinnati.
But it's not about hating guns or loving guns, and this essay, with a provocative headline perhaps intended to lure the crazies, expresses my position on responsible gun ownership.
Still, I have to turn back to the funny pages and Pearls Before Swine to explain where we're at and where we have to turn if we're going to get a grip on things.
This is another case of a cartoon done weeks ago dropping by happenstance at a critical moment, and if it expresses cynicism instead of hope, it still says something we need to think about.
A welcome backlash appears to be coming from the kids, who are justifiably outraged by "thoughts and prayers" and payoffs and corruption and gutless, spineless responses to a threat that targets them.
It reminds me of a generation who found themselves "old enough to kill, but not for voting," and of a group of young people who came just before them and who were offered no place in the mainstream society.
These kids are awakening to a perversion of our system that fosters anarchy, hatred and delusional thinking, with the paranoid need to own weapons of war only a symptom of a much deeper problem.
Look at it this way: It didn't matter where black people sat on buses. You got to your destination at the same time no matter where you were sitting.
The injustice was being required to sit in specific places at all. And so changing how buses operated was only one piece of the larger puzzle.
Similarly, we could have a ban on assault rifles, though the puppets currently dominating Congress wouldn't pass it.
But even if we got the ban and solved this little piece of the problem, they'd still be strutting the halls soliciting money from other johns to promote other forms of injustice.
However, just as young people sat at the lunch counters and rode the buses and registered the voters — yes, and suffered the beatings and the murders — so, too, we may see our kids rise up and reclaim the nation.
So never mind teaching them about classic movies from the 1940s.
Let's make sure they know about the brave, determined kids of the past, and that they take courage from them.
Comments 10
Comments are closed.