Ben Chapman (right) with Ricou Browning, who played the Creature in the film's underwater sequences.

Ben Chapman, former contract player for Universal Studios, died February 21 at age 79 in Honolulu. Chapman was best known for playing the title role in the Fifties sci-fi classic Creature from the Black Lagoon. Although he had long ago left the acting profession, he enjoyed capitalizing on his fame from the film and meeting with fans. He even established an official web site dedicated to the Creature. For his obituary click here.

For the official Gillman Website click here

Cinema Retro contributing writer Nicole Pfeiffer revisits director Franco Zeffirelli's 1967 film version of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor and finds his interpretation more suitable for thespians named Moe, Larry and Curley.

When the film went into production in 1966, Burton and Taylor were arguably the hottest celebrity couple in the world, having tantalized the press with their illicit affair on the set of Cleopatra years before. They had since starred in films such as The V.I.P.S and The Sandpiper - both critical duds that made huge profits at the box-office. The release of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, also in 1966, represented the artistic pinnacle of their careers. With The Taming of the Shrew, the couple had hoped to build on the critical acclaim they had recently gained, but the movie , which the couple also produced, was not a financial or critical success.

In his famous work "Poetics", Aristotle stated, “Spectacle has, indeed, an emotional attraction of its own, but, of all the parts, it is the least artistic, and connected least with the art of poetry.” If Aristotle could see Franco Zeffirelli’s 1967 film production of The Taming of the Shrew, he would surely grimace; Shakespeare would roll over in his grave. The Italian director’s adaptation of the Bard’s classic comedy in which the fortune hunting Petruccio (Richard Burton) attempts to tame the insufferable temper and tongue of his wealthy wife Katharine (Elizabeth Taylor), offers up a serving of spectacle so overwhelming that it stifles the poetic language and witty repartee for which the play is acclaimed. While the elaborate sets, costumes, and props are worthy of praise, the movie as a whole seems to resemble a prolonged Three Stooges short than it does Shakespeare’s battle of the sexes. Pratfalls abound, characters are frequently bopped on their bottoms with unwieldy objects, and the female lead ends up in a puddle of mud. It’s a miracle that no one’s head gets caught in a vice by the end of the movie. Additionally, the incessant laughter of the dimwitted servants at these antics proves as irritating and contrived as the laugh track on Friends.

The film’s spectacle parallels and perhaps contributes to an utter lack of character development or chemistry between the real-life divas of Burton and Taylor. After reading Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew” one can easily interpret Petruccio as a money-grubbing but charismatic fellow and Katharine as a shrewish but admirably clever heroine. However, from the start, Zeffirelli portrays only the worst possible aspects of these two characters: Petruchio is a stumbling and brutish drunkard while Katharine is a maniacal woman who senselessly destroys every object she can lay her hands on. In the play, when the two protagonists first meet, they engage in a battle of wills and wits that showcases Shakespeare’s revered gift for puns, banter, and wordplay. However, in the film, Zeffirelli abandons the humor of language in favor of physical comedy. Although the dialogue of the scene is in keeping with that of the play, its lines are shouted as Petruchio pursues Katharine in an outlandish chase throughout her father’s castle. As a result, jibes are lost to the squawking of geese, innuendos are drowned out by the crashing of chandeliers, and witticisms are overpowered by the creaking of a roof that gives way under the weight of the battling characters (and perhaps also that of Taylor’s liberally displayed bosom)

Rare teaser ad announcing production had begun on the film. Director Zeffirelli would compensate for the weak response to the movie the following year with his triumphant adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.

Additionally, the lack of character development detracts from the film by depriving members of the audience of a hero to whom they can relate. While most people have probably found themselves faced with sexual tension, involved in a troubled relationship, or engaged in a battle of wits, I sincerely hope that a majority of audiences cannot emotionally connect with a drunken and abusive gold-digger or a hysterical and violent madwoman (however, considering the recent obsession with K-fed and Britney, this may be the case). Although certain negative characteristics humorously prevail in Shakespeare’s original work, it is possible to find some endearing qualities in Petruccio and Katherine. However, in Zeffirelli’s film the characters are so unwaveringly despicable that it is impossible to feel pangs of sympathy for either or even root for the triumph of one over the other. Furthermore, by creating such flat characters, Zeffirelli also wastes the talent of his stars. While Elizabeth Taylor proved her abilities to play a nuanced and realistic shrew both in the 1966 film Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and in her real life escapades with Burton, in the movie, she only smiles or shrieks depending on the bipolar whims of her character.

However, in all fairness, the problems of the production are not entirely the fault of Zeffirelli but also, gasp, those of the Bard himself. For one, Zeffirelli’s decision to tone down the dialogue and play up the pratfalls may result from the fact that many of the puns and double entendres used by Shakespeare no longer translate to the modern world. Indeed, a movie cannot include footnotes that politely indicate that a seemingly inane term actually implied “to have sexual intercourse.” Additionally, Zeffirelli may have relied on physical comedy as a means of exaggerating the cruelty of Petruccio toward Katherine in order to portray it as absurd rather than realistic. Indeed, while taming a wife may have been a subject ripe for comedy in the early seventeenth century, the ideas of verbal and domestic abuse, no matter how they are presented, thankfully provoke more skeptical reactions in today’s society. While Ben Jonson’s claim that Shakespeare “was not of an age, but for all time,” may hold true, it seems that “The Taming of the Shrew” was in fact for an age long ended.

Cinema Retro Editor-in-Chief Lee Pfeiffer weighs in on the 80th annual Academy Awards

And the winners were....Daniel Day Lewis, Tilda Swinton, Marion Cotillard and Javier Bardem.

Well, all those cynics who predicted this would be the worst Academy Awards ceremony ever were wrong. However, because it's become so uncool to say anything nice about the Oscar telecast, don't look for candor in the mainstream press. This certainly wasn't the most memorable of telecasts, but given the short deadline producer Gil Cates had to prepare for the event after the WGA strike was settled, he can take a semi-bow for pulling it all off rather seamlessly. For one thing, the pacing was very fast (by Oscar standards) and the decision in recent years to drop those dreadful opening production numbers looks wiser with every broadcast. I actually thought the awards started at 8:00 PM east coast time, so I was a bit ticked off to find myself watching a half hour "red carpet" teaser show hosted by amiable goofball Regis Philbin. Like Larry King, Philbin's made a fortune off being - well, amiable without having to give his brain cells much of a workout. What Philbin knows about movie history could fit on the head of a pin, so his comments were all of the cringing, arse-kissing variety ("Everybody wants to be George Clooney!" he panted to the Oscar-nominated star). The Reege almost got through the entire half hour without a customary display of his ignorance, but then in the final seconds, he introduced Javier Bardem as "Xavier Bardem", thus obvously channeling the spirit of bandleader Xavier Cougat, who is probably Philbin's idea of a hip celeb.

Once the ceremonies began, Jon Stewart seemed far more comfortable than his first time around as host in 2006. He got off some mildly amusing zingers and a minimum of duds. Throughout the evening, however, his performance wavered on several occasions, though a well-placed observation generally salvaged his performance. He's not the ideal host for this gig, but he wasn't the disaster many of us feared. (For that we'd have to go back to David Letterman's (hopefully) one-shot brush with being an Oscar host.) An impressive aspect of the show was the presence of real star power (or what passes for real star power today.) Not long ago, it was considered too corny to attend the awards, so many major stars stayed away. However, the pendulum seems to have swung back and it was nice to see so many big names in attendance: Harrison Ford (refreshingly, looking as pained and grumpy as ever), John Travolta (still with the bizarre haircut that resembles a skullcap), Tom Hanks, Martin Scorsese, Helen Mirren,Cameron Diaz, Johnny Depp, Denzel Washington, Jack Nicholson, - and even living legend Mickey Rooney, who probably had to show ID to the ushers to prove he wasn't a limo driver. Highlights of the show included the usual heart-felt tribute to the staggering number of artists who had died in the previous year. (Even well-known agents were included this time around). Unavoidably, the tribute had to end on the somber note of Heath Ledger's passing. Many movie fans probably don't realize how many well known people from the industry have died until they watch this segment of the Oscar show. Another nice gesture was the inclusion of U.S. servicemen and women announcing the nominees and winner for documentary short. The broadcast came from Baghdad and might have been a sop to right wingers because of the abundance of nominated documentary films that were harshly critical of U.S war policy. In any event, it was a good moment.

The absurdity of limiting winners to an acceptance speech of less than a minute became increasingly irritating and embarrassing. Here are people at the pinnacle of their professional careers and if one takes the time to mention their mother in their acceptance speech, then their partner probably loses the opportunity to speak at all. Let these people talk - some will undoubtedly be boring, but occasionally someone will say something profound or memorable. When young songwriter Marketa Irglova was shafted out of being able to speak when her co-writer took up her precious twenty seconds of time, Jon Stewart very graciously invited her out to the stage later to give her speech. It firmly put the spotlight on how ridiculous these time limitations had become - and it's a reason other awards shows that don't have this rule have begun to make serious inroads on Oscar.

If you're wondering why Diablo Cody's arm bore a large tattoo of a scantily-clad woman, it's because her previous career was as an exotic dancer. She won a well-deserved Oscar for his screenplay for Juno.

For the most part, the stars looked good. There were no completely over-the-top outfits, except for an avant garde number that first time screenwriter Diablo Cody wore on stage to accept her well-deserved Oscar for the charming and funny Juno. However, since Cody's previous career was as a stripper, we'll give her a pass. Most of the men looked handsome and elegant and none wore those awful, designer cowboy tuxes that usually show up. (Though we do wish the craze for tuxedos with straight ties will pass! There is nothing more flattering than the old standard black tux with bow tie. - and if you doubt me, just look at George Clooney. who has the timeless elegance of Cary Grant). The women looked appropriately stunning, though we kind of miss the Cher era in which at least one eye-popping number dominated the fashion columns the following morning. The only truly awful wardrobe malfunction was Jennifer Hudson's white gown. We know she's a full-figured woman, but this little number made her look like an aircraft carrier. I expected to see U.S.S. Enterprise stenciled on her rear end.