“Do you like night life?” 1931
2001, Museum Amsterdam, Chagall, 1931
“Do you like night life?” 1931
2001, Museum Amsterdam, Chagall, 1931
Jean Harlow for, “Platinum Blonde” (1931)
“Cane In The Grate” (cut scene from “City Lights”), seen in phenomenol documentary “Unknown Chaplin” from 1983
“David later confessed that he was absolutely sick with excitement, realizing that we were seeing a film which Chaplin had shot and cut, and of which he had made a graded print – absolutely complete and perfect, in its own way – and which had lain on the shelf unknown to anyone outside Chaplin’s immediate circle for fifty years. It was pure cinema – no subtitles were needed, no sound effects could have improved it. The sequence was the essence of Chaplin’s art. For he, more than anyone else in pictures, could take the smallest object, the least promising prop., and turn it into a fabulously funny sequence”.
“The Search for Charlie Chaplin”: Kevin Brownlow 2005 (pg 20-21)
**The gentleman seated in the window is Harry Crocker a Chaplin associate but known to the viewing public as Rex the Tightrope Walker in “The Circus”.
Anna May Wong in Daughter of the Dragon, 1931
YATESBURY SHIRE STUD.
The property of WM. J. CUMBER, THEALE, BERKS.
Photo by G. H. Parsons.
BASILDON CLANSMAN 36277. Dark Brown, foaled 1918. Sire, Champlon’s Clansman 29221; dam, 72671 Tandridge Choice by Shamrock of Tandridge 25620. He was the leading sire at the Shire Horse Shows of 1927, 1928, and 1929, and the Summer Shows of 1927 and 1928.
Live Stock Journal: Studs, Herds & Flocks Illustrated. Published 1931.
The Times, Shreveport, Louisiana, May 7, 1931
Not a totally faithful adaptation of the Mary Shelley book, still extremely important for not just horror movies, but movies as a whole. I thought about coming at this review from the perspective of what 1931’s Frankenstein meant for the future of cinema, and how it was still essentially in its infancy and doing anything even close to what Frankenstein did, changing the culture forever and remaining in the zeitgeist even now, almost a hundred years later, is a monumental achievement and should be viewed as such. But that’s never really been my jam. Frankenstein might have been great for the time, I don’t know, I wasn’t there, but I personally only ever found it to be okay. Re-watching it this Halloween was, I think the fourth time I’ve given it a go, and it’s really not as enthralling as people seem to give it credit for. My roommate fell asleep. It’s not that it’s black and white either, it just doesn’t have as clear a philosophical intention as the book, nor as gripping an output as more modern offerings.
Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal.
Commissioned from Monotype Corporation by the Times newspaper of London in 1931, and based on research into legibility and readability, it has become one of the most widely used serif typefaces.
Based on the 12-point size of Times Roman, this is the Linotype version of Monotype’s Times New Roman.
It ranks at position 6 among The 100 All Time Best Fonts.
The popular Victorian image of the ideal wife/woman came to be “the Angel in the House”; she was expected to be devoted and submissive to her husband. The Angel was passive and powerless, meek, charming, graceful, sympathetic, self-sacrificing, pious, and above all–pure. The phrase “Angel in the House” comes from the title of an immensely popular poem by Coventry Patmore, in which he holds his angel-wife up as a model for all women.
Believing that his wife Emily was the perfect Victorian wife, he wrote “The Angel in the House” about her (originally published in 1854, revised through 1862). Though it did not receive much attention when it was first published in 1854, it became increasingly popular through the rest of the nineteenth century and continued to be influential into the twentieth century. For Virginia Woolf, the repressive ideal of women represented by the Angel in the House was still so potent that she wrote, in 1931, “Killing the Angel in the House was part of the occupation of a woman writer.”
The following excerpt will give you a sense of the ideal woman and the male-female relationship presented by Patmore’s poem:
Man must be pleased; but him to please
Is woman’s pleasure; down the gulf
Of his condoled necessities
She casts her best, she flings herself.
How often flings for nought, and yokes
Her heart to an icicle or whim,
Whose each impatient word provokes
Another, not from her, but him;
While she, too gentle even to force
His penitence by kind replies,
Waits by, expecting his remorse,
With pardon in her pitying eyes;
And if he once, by shame oppress’d,
A comfortable word confers,
She leans and weeps against his breast,
And seems to think the sin was hers;
Or any eye to see her charms,
At any time, she’s still his wife,
Dearly devoted to his arms;
She loves with love that cannot tire;
And when, ah woe, she loves alone,
Through passionate duty love springs higher,
As grass grows taller round a stone.
Initially this ideal primarily expressed the values of the middle classes. However, Queen Victoria’s devoting herself to her husband Prince Albert and to a domestic life encouraged the ideal to spread throughout nineteenth century society.
A renewed interest in Patmore’s poem has come about in the past half a century which stems largely from interests in the various aspects of Victorian lifestyles. The poem is often studied primarily for its unadulterated and in depth look at the common life of middle class lifestyles in Victorian England. It is considered more valuable among scholars for its historical relevance and its detailed accounts of gendered separations than it is for its literary value.
Its detailed accounts stem from Patmore’s belief that the routine machinations of everyday life are prime subject for the illuminations of the poet. Every day routines and interactions of man and woman are things to be elucidated through verse. Due to his close accounts and evaluations, the role of woman in the poem exemplifies the Victorian theory of Separate spheres. This ideology asserts that women and men are naturally predisposed to excel in a specific realm of society or culture. Women were regarded as being given to aspects of the private or domestic sphere which generally entailed caring for the house and children, while men were made for the public sphere which makes it appropriate for them to leave the home for work and civic obligations.
Specifically in recent decades, the study of the poem has increased among feminine studies in opposition to the assertion of these spheres. Rather than studying the poem for its depiction of the woman’s lifestyle, it is studied to examine the masculine writer’s prejudices, his view of these feminine roles and why men held women to these roles. Following the publication of Patmore’s poem, the term angel in the house came to be used in reference to women who embodied the Victorian feminine ideal: a wife and mother who was selflessly devoted to her children and submissive to her husband. The term then evolved into a more derogatory assessment of antiquated roles with critiques from popular feminist writers like Virginia Woolf.
Chicken Run (2000) - Circa 1951
With the upcoming sequel, i’d say it would be set a year later.
The Incredibles ending and Rise of The Underminer set around August 16th to early September 1962, not later. The Incredibles all ends. Unpopular opinion: In my head-canon, “Rise of The Underminer” is my real canon “Incredibles 2”, Incredibles 2 is not canon to my head-canon. I feel that Rise of The Underminer is more accurate to the first movie. Incredibles 2 is a nice touch, but a stange one too. I didn’t think a film Incredibles sequel was as needed as many people expected. I feel that the game’s good enough. No third film needed. Also, if I would put Incredibles 2 and Rise of The Underminer together, most of Rise of The Underminer would be set after Incredibles 2. Sorry, but Incredibles 2 isn’t a part of my head-canon.
1931 is the year that James And The Giant Peach is set in
Madeline (Franchise) is set around the 1930s
Matilda, The Witches, The Gremlins, set around possibly 1938
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Possibly it’s book sequel too or maybe a year later) is set around 1964
The BFG is set around 1932
The Twits is set around 1979
Fantastic Mr Fox is possibly set around 1970 (Both the book and the film)
Most Ronald Dahl stories are set around the 1930s or before
Christopher Robin is set in 1949, but the childhood scenes are set around between 1926-1934
“Wooing the Raccoon” 1931.