Before the movies, there was the classic Chipmunks Christmas album that featured “The Chipmunk Song.” Although the version below with puppets does not have the technology of the movies, I still like it best. Perhaps my fondness for the original results from the fact that my family played this song (and the album) every year when I was growing up.
Alvin and the Chipmunks were created by Ross Bagdasarian Sr., who went by the name David Seville as the human foil to the rascally Alvin. Bagdasarian as Seville had a 1958 hit with a novelty song, “Witch Doctor.” That song and his follow-up featured some use of his speeded-up voice.
But in late fall of 1958, he made more use of the speed technique when he released the first Chipmunks song. Bagdasarian reportedly got the idea for chipmunk characters when one of the animals had dashed in front of his car while he was driving in Sequoia National Park. The result, “The Chipmunks Song (Christmas Don’t Be Late),” became a massive hit.
The popularity of the Christmas song led to other Chipmunk songs. The original song first appeared on the album Let’s All Sing with the Chipmunks (1959). It appeared again on the 1962 holiday album, Christmas with the Chipmunks, which is the album we had in our house.
Bagdasarian also wrote the Rosemary Clooney hit “Come on-a My House.” And he appeared in some small movie roles before he created The Chipmunks.
In Rear Window (1954), Bagdasarian portrays a piano-player songwriter who writes the song “Lisa.” In this clip, he plays a piano in a scene that also features director Alfred Hitchcock’s signature cameo.
I cannot remember whether I got a hula-hoop before or after I heard “The Chipmunks Song” the first time. But I suppose kids today might question how the hottest toy at the time was a hoop you threw around your waist. Oh well.
In the video below, Bagdasarian, i.e. David Seville, appears with the Chipmunks on The Ed Sullivan Show. Merry Christmas.
What is your favorite childhood Christmas album? Leave your two cents in the comments.
A new documentary, Streetlight Harmonies (2017), explores the early years of Doo-Wop music. The film features early performers like the Drifters’ Charlie Thomas, explaining that the early street singers of the 1950s began singing for the friendship with other singers and to attract girls.
Also, the film traces how the music that started out on the street corners developed into the girl groups of the 1960s and later influenced other singers including modern boy bands. Brent Wilson directed Streetlight Harmonies. Check out this trailer for Streetlight Harmonies.
Streetlight Harmonies premieres November 14, 2017 at the Doc NYC festival.
The following commentary is a Guest Post by Russ Miller, an expert on literature, film, and other things. Russ grew up in the West and currently lives in Virginia.
I live in Charlottesville. That used to be something I said with no small measure of satisfaction. It is a gem of a town, tucked into the folds of the genteel Blue Ridge Mountains and warmed by the rational light of the University of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, whose Monticello estate is located on the outskirts of town, presides over Charlottesville like a secular saint, setting a tone of enlightenment and “civic republicanism.” Rich in culture and community, Charlottesville really is a magical place to call home. It is sophisticated, but on a human scale. Most American city governments do not have to trouble with maintaining a page at the municipal website entitled “Awards and Recognition.” The recent list of honors bestowed on Charlottesville is as humbling as it is inspiring:
In the months after these dramatic Council votes, right-wing racist groups converged on Charlottesville, using the Lee statue (awaiting its fate while litigation proceeded) as a platform to express a grotesque mix of race-hatred, revisionist history, scapegoating, and violence. Suddenly, the word “Charlottesville” has become a talisman for America’s entrenched racism, political dysfunction, and irresolvable division. In the days after the riots, AlJazeera offered the mocking lament: “Charlottesville is America everywhere.”
Taylor Sheridan’s well-reviewed new film Wind River quietly slipped into Charlottesville’s cinemas in the days before the riots. Like Sheridan’s previous scripts, Wind River seeks to mix edge-of-your-seat action/drama with earnest commentary on America’s most desolate corners and hopeless populations.
In Wind River, Sheridan leaves behind the bankrupt dirt-farmers (Hell or Highwater (2016)) and drug dealers (Sicario (2015)) that populate the borderlands of his desperate, parched, and nearly lifeless Desert Southwest. His new tragic topography is the bone-cracking cold of the impoverished Wind River Indian Reservation in the snow-swept mountain desert of central Wyoming where the latest in a string of murders of young Native American women sets the film’s plot.
The ensuing investigation brings together the wounded and benumbed game-tracker (Jeremy Renner) and the innocent and unsuspecting FBI agent (Elizabeth Olsen). Sheridan wants them to stand-in for Americans’ posture towards the calamity that is devastating the Native American community generally and Native American women more specifically: those who know something about it are mostly despairing; the rest of us simply have no idea. When Olsen’s uninitiated agent arrives at the crime scene poorly navigating the snow-slicked roads and woefully under-dressed for a descending blizzard, Renner’s character ushers her into a new kind of nightmare on his growling snowmobile.
The film deserves its positive buzz. It is well-paced and features a couple of near-perfect episodes of breathtaking cinematic tension. Sheridan’s script is full of sermonizing but delivers some unforgettable lines that land like punches. And Renner makes a fair bid for a Best Actor Oscar. The muted, agonized, and vulnerable manhood that he and the Native American actor Gil Birmingham express in several scenes is hauntingly effective. Above all, the film succeeds as a “blistering expose of violence against Native American women.”
It is this last feature that created the gnawing link between Wind River and Charlottesville for me. I fear that the direction I am about to take is dangerous because it risks pitting the victims of unspeakable, historic crimes in an unwinnable contest for “America’s most abused.” I am sensitive to this risk. And I want to say as clearly as possible that I am not in the least interested in stirring up some kind of “race to the bottom of American injustice.” But, upon seeing the film, I could not suppress the chilling realization that, just a few blocks from Charlottesville’s newly renamed Emancipation Park and the disputed statue of Robert E. Lee, another statue stands amidst the traffic at the busy intersection of Main and Ridge streets. The bronze “Lewis & Clark and Sacagawea Statue” rises above Lewis & Clark Triangle, just a few yards from the front door of Charlottesville’s federal courthouse.
The statue is now referred to as the “Lewis & Clark and Sacagawea Statue” because modern sensibilities require us to acknowledge that it prominently features the entwined figures of all three of these protagonists from Lewis & Clark’s “journey of the corps of discovery.” But the Charles Keck sculpture, commissioned by Paul McIntire, was unveiled in 1919 with the title “Their First View of the Pacific.” It is fair to assume that the sculptor was not celebrating Sacagawea’s triumph.
McIntire also commissioned Charlottesville’s now-infamous Robert E. Lee statue. But, where Lee serves as a painful symbol for America’s still-unresolved racist past, the Lewis & Clark and Sacagawea Statue unambiguously depicts and embodies the racist logic of the European genocide against the New World’s Native American occupants. In the statue Sacagawea crouches, almost animal-like, at the feet of the eponymous Anglo-European conquerors. Wind River’s poignancy derives from the oppression, and eventual decimation, of Native Americans that flowed inexorably from the westward impulse ignited in America’s breast by Lewis and Clark. That oppression is anticipated and endorsed – in hardened bronze – in Charlottesville’s “other” statue.
There have been some critical murmurs aimed at the Lewis & Clark Statue over the years. One result of the criticism was the erection, in 2009, of a small plague at the statue’s base that seeks to contextualize Sacajawea’s role in the Lewis & Clark expedition by acknowledging her “courage and bravery” and her service as “an ambassador, bridging relations among nations.” This, the plague tells us, “earned her recognition in the chronicles of American History.”
But in the intense, still simmering debates over our civic statuary, the Charlottesville City Council did not seriously consider acting against this explicitly racist monument. Why is that?
Among all the other confounding complexities that will bedevil our long-overdue reckoning with our dark past, the movie and the statue suggest that we also have to grapple with hierarchies of hate and healing in America. Despite the current, strong appetite for victories of decency over symbols, some wounds will have to wait, even while some others have contemplated the connection between Native Americans and recent protests.
Glenn Kenny, reviewing Wind River for the NY Times, concluded that the “film’s ultimate statement” involves “an expanded awareness that the justice done by the good guys in this film is not nearly sufficient with respect to the larger injustice done to Native Americans.” Add that to Charlottesville’s sins, too.
Photos courtesy of Russ Miller. Leave your two cents in the comments.
Martin Scorsese’s movie Silence (2016) received some of the most mixed reviews of the director’s career. Adam Graham of The Detroit News called it “a slog,” while Calvin Williams of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch called it Scorsese’s “most impassioned” film. In the middle were reviews like the one from The New Yorker‘s Anthony Lane, calling the movie “strained.”
The ratings on Rotten Tomatoes shows even more of a divide between critics and regular viewers. While the movie has a respectable 84% rating from critics, the audience member rating is much lower at 69%. One of the reasons for the divide may be that audience members were disappointed by the ending. [Warning: This post contains spoilers about the ending of Silence.]
I initially felt disappointment at the ending, but the movie stayed with me much longer than most recent movies. Many decent films like this summer’s Spider Man: Homecoming (2017) provide enjoyment during your viewing. And then you immediately stop thinking about the movie once it ends. But Silence lingered in my consciousness.
Silence is based upon 1966 novelSilence by Shūsaku Endō. Although the book is a novel, it is based on real-life persecution by Christians in Japan in the Seventeenth Century. The story is loosely inspired by the lives of Cristóvão Ferreira (1580-1650) and Italian Jesuit missionaryGiuseppe Chiara (1610-1685).
For decades, Martin Scorsese wanted to bring the book to the screen, finally achieving that goal in a film he wrote with Jay Cocks. The movie stars Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Liam Neeson, Tadanobu Asano and Ciarán Hinds.
In the film, two Jesuit priests, Father Rodrigues (Garfield) and Father Garrupe (Driver) leave Portugal in the 1640s to go to Japan to seek their teacher Father Ferreira (Neeson). Amidst word of persecution of Christians in Japan, they have heard that Father Ferreira has apostasized, i.e., forsaken his faith.
Thus begins their journey, which ultimately ends up focusing more on Father Rodrigues. With him, we see horrible acts done by the Japanese to get Christians to reject their faith by trampling (stepping upon) religious images.
The film is enthralling, for its illustration of some of the horrors of torture, both physical and mental. While much of the focus remains on Rodrigues, we are surprised by the intelligence of the Japanese characters trying to do what they think necessary to protect their country. Thus, even while the film focuses on a personal journey of faith, the movie also raises questions about colonialism, with the white priests going to a foreign country to impose their beliefs.
Without spoiling more of the movie than necessary for this discussion, the movie raises questions about faith. Does one maintain their faith if they believe they must surrender that faith to preserve the teachings of that faith?
Ultimately, we see some who have given up that faith to save other lives. There is no flicker of hope, except for a final scene of one of the characters, years in the future, dying and being cremated. At his cremation, hidden from the view of everyone, his hands hold a small cross that his wife put there (Scorsese added this scene, which was not in the book).
Why the Ending is Unsatisfying to Many of Us
We are not used to seeing movies featuring a main character who is so utterly defeated. The American Biblical scholar Walter Wink wrote about how movies and TV shows follow a traditional trajectory to teach us to embrace violence. Generally, we see the “hero” beaten repeatedly to the point where we root for the hero to rise and use violence against the enemy. When the hero does, we feel satisfaction in the Myth of Redemptive Violence. (For more on Wink’s argument, see our posts on redemptive violence in Westerns.)
Having been conditioned by movies about retribution, a viewer watching Silence and the horrors it portrays expects that one of the characters will fine a way to defeat his tormentors. We expect a heroic act to solve the dilemma. Instead, we only see a failed heroic act by another character.
So, we wait for something. Even after the main character has apostasized, we wait for some resolution, at least an escape from a life without one’s core beliefs. But it does not come. We only get a flicker of rebellion after death, and that flicker is far from satisfying.
Why the Ending is Perfect
Yet, it is that unsatisfying ending that is perfect. Had the story ended with a happy victory, we might forget the underlying questions the film asks.
Like the characters in the film, we are asked to struggle with the definition of faith in an unwinnable situation. Is it better to be a martyr (or to make others become martyrs in your place) or to surrender? It is like Star Trek‘s Kobayashi Maru no-win situation training exercise, but without a loophole for James T. Kirk to find.
Others have written more eloquently about the questions asked by the movie and novel. For example, Amy Welborn in The Catholic World Report notes that the story “is not only [about] the struggle to come to an understanding of faith and ourselves, but what happens after that. How do we live?”
The movie’s spiritual advisor Reverend James Martin has explained, “This isn’t the fake spirituality of ‘If you believe in God, everything turns out great.’ This movie says you can believe in God but bad things might still happen. And then it asks, what do you do with that faith?”
So ultimately, it is in the unsatisfactory ending that the movie gives us the gift of questions to ponder. If one of the main characters were a super hero who saved everyone and themselves, the movie would spend less time in our consciousness than the popcorn stays in our stomach. So, we continue to ponder the questions Scorsese wants us to consider. Why was God silent? What would I have done? How do you make such choices?
One of the most beloved movies of all time, The Wizard of Oz, opened in theaters on August 25, 1939. Looking back, the film was not as big of a hit as you might expect. The movie, which cost $2.8 million to make, at first made only around $3 million at the box office.
The movie’s popularity started to soar after its initial television broadcast in November 1956 when around 45 million people tuned in to watch it. Subsequently, from 1959 until 1991, TV showed the movie once a year.
So, of course many of us of a certain age know the movie from television and annual viewings. I still remember when we bought our first color television set. My most lasting memory of that TV is when we watched The Wizard of Oz, a movie we’d already seen numerous times in black and white. But the first year when we watched it on our color TV, we were shocked when the movie changed from black and white in the Kansas scenes to glorious Technicolor in the Oz scenes.
Back in 1939, The Wizard of Oz was already on its way to becoming a classic. The film received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, losing to another classic, Gone With the Wind. Still, the movie with the munchkins won the Best Song Oscar for “Over the Rainbow.” And Judy Garland won a special award at the Oscars for Best Juvenile Performer.
Yet, back in 1939, viewers could not have foreseen how pervasive the movie would become in our lives, or the different ways we would be able to view it. Other generations first saw The Wizard of Oz on videotape, on DVD, on Blu-ray, and streaming on the Internet. The film has stood the test of time even as the technology has repeatedly changed.
The movie works on a number of levels too. On the one hand, it is a delightful musical fantasy for children. But adults enjoy it too, both for nostalgia about their youths and to think about underlying meanings behind the story.
Symbolism in The Wizard of Oz
Of the many theories about the meaning of The Wizard of Oz, the most well-known is that L. Frank Baum’s book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a symbolic political story about the fall of the Populist Movement in the United States. Under this reading, Dorothy represents the common folk, the Scarecrow represents the farmers, the Tin Man represents the industrial worker, and the Cowardly Lion represents politician William Jennings Bryan. The Yellow Brick Road symbolizes the gold standard and the green of Oz represents the dollar.
There are competing theories too. These include theories about religious or atheist allegories.
Additionally, author Salman Rushdie has surmised that the story is really about the inadequacies of adults. In this delightful audio from a 2008 BBC Radio 4 program, Rushdie discusses the movie. Historian David Powell and The New Yorker theater critic John Lahr (the son of Burt Lahr who played the Cowardly Lion) join him.
No matter theory you subscribe too, there is one certainty about The Wizard of Oz. We will continue to watch the movie no matter how movie-viewing technology changes in the future. Leave your two cents in the comments.