#Wild Bill Davis

[jazzplusplus]

1976 - Wild Bill Davis-Eddie Lockjaw Davis Quartet - tournée en France organisée par le label Black and Blue

Wild Bill Davis (org), Eddie Lockjaw Davis (ts), Billy Butler (g), Oliver Jackson (dr)

[jazzdailyblog]

The Genius of Oliver Nelson: A Trailblazer in Jazz Composition and Arranging

Introduction: Oliver Nelson, a name synonymous with innovative jazz composition and sophisticated arranging, carved out a unique and influential space in the world of jazz. Born ninety-two years ago today on June 4, 1932, in St. Louis, Missouri, Nelson’s legacy encompasses a prolific career as a saxophonist, composer, arranger, and bandleader. His contributions to jazz extend beyond his…

[braemjeorn]

we don't talk abt these two mentors enough

only had less than five minutes of dialogue each it's like a cameo, but it's my favourite cameos

[crazypigeonenjoyer]

QI series E episode 12: Empire

[awesomefridayca]

Podcast: Speak No Evil & The Wild Robot

Greetings programs! This week on the show, we’re talking about two new-to-home video releases. First up, Speak No Evil is a remake of a 2022 Danish film starring James McAvoy. Then we dive into the world of The Wild Robot, a lovely new film from Dreamworks Animation starring the vocal talents of Lupita Nyong’o, Pedro Pascal, and more! Join us! Continue reading Podcast: Speak No Evil & The…

[sesiondemadrugada]

Wild Bill (Walter Hill, 1995).

[denimbex1986]

'****

“That was completely nuts!” So exclaims Catherine Tate’s ever-eloquent Donna Temple-Noble during the dizzying climax of ‘The Giggle’, Doctor Who’s third and final 60th anniversary special. In-universe, it’s a perfectly understandable reaction to a particularly wild development involving a high striker hammer and the Doctor’s trusty TARDIS. It also just so happens to be a pretty solid summation of the episode as a whole. Because make no mistake, Russell T. Davies’ Whoniverse-reshaping grand finale — a breathless hour of blockbuster telly that’s thrilling, chilling, heartwarming, and headspinning (and that’s just the Spice Girls needledrop!) — is completely nuts.

If last week’s spaceship-in-a-bottle ep ‘Wild Blue Yonder’ was a masterclass in restraint from RTD, then consider ‘The Giggle’ the showrunner unleashed, swinging for the fences with a story rocking more threads than Ncuti Gatwa’s wardrobe. Kicking off with John Logie Baird’s invention of television in 1925 and one ‘Stooky Bill’ — a real puppet so malevolent it makes Annabelle look like a Squishmallow and acts as the villainous Toymaker’s (Neil Patrick Harris) chosen vessel for global chaos — Davies quickly picks up where ‘Yonder’ left off. In short, ol’ Stooky Bill’s musical giggle — transmitted through every screen across the world — has got into everybody’s heads, convincing them they’re 100% right about everything. Screen-enslaved masses utterly convinced they’re right who won’t take no for an answer? Thank goodness this is science fiction, right?

It’s safe to say RTD’s righteous fury at the current sociopolitical climate is more of a focal point here than in the previous two specials. Within a span of mere minutes, Davies’ satirical set-up ruthlessly apes anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, alt-media conspiracies, and governmental apathy. Some of it — a man endangering himself and others by needlessly standing in the middle of the road because he believes that’s what his taxes have paid for — is lacerating in its absurd plausibility. Other elements — the decidedly camp, to-camera “No change there, then” when a suspiciously Johnsonian PM blithely asks “Why should I care about you?” — are perhaps a little too on-the-nose for comfort.

The central assertion behind this plot — that the world we live in has unmoored itself from principles of right and wrong in favour of individualist notions of winners and losers — is a potent reminder that this all pours from the same pen responsible for Years & Years and It’s A Sin. An early doors monologue from Tennant’s Doctor on how humanity has never struggled to hate, given from within UNIT’s swish new Avengers Tower-looking HQ is vintage RTD. (The new HQ, combined with return of Jemma Redgrave’s Kate Lethbridge-Stewart and the reintroduction of Bonnie Langford’s classic Who companion Mel do nothing to defuse suggestions a spin-off is imminent.)

Alas, no sooner has the apocalypse-level threat been established than we find the Doctor and Donna hotfooting it back to the TARDIS for a trip to Soho circa 1925 in search of the mysterious giggling noise. Here, the episode pivots into out-and-out horror territory, as the duo enter the domain of Neil Patrick Harris’ alternatingly camp and utterly chilling big bad the Toymaker. A kind of problematic deepcut villain from Who history, here the Toymaker is reimagined anew as a palpable existential threat to the Doctor, a manipulative puppeteer and cosmic game player who renders The Master a barely apprentice-level adversary by comparison.

It’s only really as the Doctor and Donna move through the Toymaker’s Gothically manifested dimension — an exquisitely designed realm of dank hotel corridors, pupaphobe-triggering marionettes, and creepy carny puppet shows — that ‘The Giggle’ pauses to catch its breath. It’s in these moments director Chanya Button lets Davies’s otherwise relentless script breathe, augmenting the specials’ ongoing conversation with the show’s own legacy. It’s here that the Doctor is brutally confronted with his past companions’ fates, and it is here that his increasingly fraught sense of self (“Without the TARDIS, without the sonic, without the Time Lord, what am I?”) is interrogated by the God-like Toymaker. “I made a jigsaw out of your history,” Harris’ Toymaker teases, referencing and then discarding the Whoniverse canon’s more outré recent revelations with outlandish ease. It’s a fascinating way to put a pin in the Timeless Child and Flux of it all, Davies simply suggesting that “The Canon” is just one great game.

Speaking of games, mere moments later, the trio — the Doctor, Donna, and the Toymaker — find themselves back in 2023, the elemental ne’er-do-well turning soldiers into balloons while dancing to ‘Spice Up Your Life’. It’s a particularly bananas tonal shift in an episode filled with them, and one that leads the Toymaker and the Doctor directly into their final game.

Without getting into the specifics of it all, if you’re reading this then you likely know that Ncuti Gatwa’s Fifteenth Doctor makes an earlier introduction than many would’ve expected in this finale. That said introduction involves the newest custodian of the TARDIS playing a universe-stakes game of literal catch, in his underpants, and he still manages to arrive on the scene as a force of wit, warmth, sass, and spunk tells you all you need to know about how much of a treat we’re in for come Christmas Day. As the dramatic peak of a 60th anniversary celebration, Y-front-clad ball games (steady!) really shouldn’t work. It is, of course, ludicrous, But it’s also such a uniquely, singularly Who thing to do that it plays out as if it simply couldn’t have been anything else. Gatwa’s arrival within that pivotal moment of transition — for the show and for Tennant’s Fourteenth Doctor — is sensational, the actor’s unique Scottish-Rwandan brogue and hopeful energy sparking a multitude of possibilities for just who the next Doctor will be. Instantly though, he feels *right*.

Now, the discourse will indubitably rage on about the ramifications of ‘The Giggle’s canon-busting denouement. Is it a damning indictment of modern franchises and fandom’s refusal to let things go? Or is it more simply a sincerely delivered reminder that — after years spent running on fumes in a universe gone mad — we’re all just a little bit burnt out, all desperately in need of nothing more than to sit and be with the ones we love for a while? The answer is probably, ultimately, somewhere in between. But of one thing we can be sure. RTD’s final salvo for Who’s 60th celebrations offers — in construction, writing, performance, and execution — a blessedly uncynical and sadly increasingly rare thing; a truly happy ending. That Tennant and Tate — who both finish their run here on a real high, as sarky and in-step with one another as ever — get to go out smiling, ending the show’s ongoing accumulation of trauma across NuWho, is a real balm for the soul.

Overall, ‘The Giggle’ — and by extension these three specials as a collective — successfully act as a heartfelt paean to the messiness and madness of making and watching Doctor Who. They provide a graceful rehabilitation of the show’s recent history, reflect poignantly on Who’s enduring cross-generational appeal, and yet still somehow manage to smoothly clear the field for Ncuti Gatwa’s run as the Doctor. Occasionally they’re a tad unwieldy, with so many ideas that some struggle to breathe as RTD has his cake, eats it, and then duplicates it before going back for seconds. That’s never more apparent than here in this filled-to-bursting finale. But at the same time, they’re also a promise. A promise to embrace the new, to make Doctor Who fun again, and to regenerate the show with enough love coursing through its veins to fill two hearts, to power two TARDISes. And to that we can only really say, one last time, “ALLONS-Y!”

A messy, madcap, yet ultimately fitting finale to Who’s 60th anniversary celebrations, ‘The Giggle’ marks David Tennant’s departure from — and Ncuti Gatwa’s arrival in — the TARDIS with real flair.'

[corvidaedream]

as much as I love local dead people from the 1770s, im currently really feeling a great deal of love for the local dead people of the 1890s and 1900s who looked at all these miscellaneous handwritten papers from the 1770s and went "we should probably transcribe these and put them into books"

thanks to whoever u were at the municipal office in 1900 who saved such gems in "A volume of records relating to the early history of Boston" as a hilariously informal census of who owned cows and how many in the city in 1774

[historydailyfrancischappellblack]

Wild West Wednesday - Wild Bill Hickok and Gambler Davis Tutt Engaged in First Recorded Gunfight in the Old West 

Image: Wild Bill Hickok threatens the friends of Davis Tutt after defeating Tutt in a duel. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, February 1867. (Public Domain) On July 21, 1865, Wild Bill Hickok and gambler Davis Tutt engaged in a gunfight in the town square of Springfield, Missouri. It is the first time in the recorded history of the Old West that a one-on-one pistol quick-draw duel took place in…

[batboyblog]

House Election 2024

In the House Republican have a majority of just 4 seats, flip 4 seats and Democrats get a majority and can pass things like national abortion rights, voting rights, bills on student loan debt and medical debt and much more. So here's a list of the key races for control of the House, so look up your district and find a way to get involved.

Find your House District

Alabama

Shomari Figures (AL-02) Flip

Alaska

Mary Peltola (AK-AL) Hold

Arizona

Amish Shah (AZ-01) Flip

Kirsten Engel (AZ-06) Flip

California

Jessica Morse (CA-03) Flip

Josh Harder (CA-09) Hold

Adam Gray (CA-13) Flip

Rudy Salas (CA-22) Flip

George Whitesides (CA-27) Flip

Joe Kerr (CA-40) Flip

Will Rollins (CA-41) Flip

Derek Tran (CA-45) Flip

Dave Min (CA-47) Hold

Mike Levin (CA-49) Hold

Colorado

Adam Frisch (CO-03) Flip

Yadira Caraveo (CO-08) Hold

Connecticut

Jahana Hayes (CT-05) Hold

Florida

Darren Soto (FL-09) Hold

Whitney Fox (FL-13) Flip

Jared Moskowitz (FL-23) Hold

Illinois

Nikki Budzinski (IL-13) Hold

Eric Sorensen (IL-17) Hold

Indiana

Frank Mrvan (IN-01) Hold

Iowa

Christina Bohannan (IA-01) Flip

Lanon Baccam (IA-03) Flip

Kansas

Sharice Davids (KS-03) Hold

Maine

Jared Golden (ME-02) Hold

Maryland

April McClain-Delaney (MD-06) Hold

Michigan

Hillary Scholten (MI-03) Hold

Curtis Hertel (MI-07) Hold

Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI-08) Hold

Carl Marlinga (MI-10) Flip

Minnesota

Angie Craig (MN-02) Hold

Montana

Monica Tranel (MT-01) Flip

Nebraska

Tony Vargas (NE-02) Flip

Nevada

Dina Titus (NV-01) Hold

Susie Lee (NV-03) Hold

Steven Horsford (NV-04) Hold

New Hampshire

Chris Pappas (NH-01) Hold

New Jersey

Sue Altman (NJ-07) Flip

New Mexico

Gabe Vasquez (NM-02) Hold

New York

John Avlon (NY-01) Flip

Tom Suozzi (NY-03) Hold

Laura Gillen (NY-04) Flip

Mondaire Jones (NY-17) Flip

Pat Ryan (NY-18) Hold

Josh Riley (NY-19) Flip

John Mannion (NY-22) Flip

North Carolina

Don Davis (NC-01) Hold

Ohio

Greg Landsman (OH-01) Hold

Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) Hold

Emilia Sykes (OH-13) Hold

Oregon

Val Hoyle (OR-04) Hold

Janelle Bynum (OR-05) Flip

Andrea Salinas (OR-06) Hold

Pennsylvania

Ashley Ehasz (PA-01) Flip

Susan Wild (PA-07) Hold

Matt Cartwright (PA-08) Hold

Janelle Stelson (PA-10) Flip

Chris Deluzio (PA-17) Hold

Texas

Michelle Vallejo (TX-15) Flip

Henry Cuellar (TX-28) Hold

Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34) Hold

Virginia

Missy Cotter Smasal (VA-02) Flip

Eugene Vindman (VA-07) Hold

Washington

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) Hold

Kim Schrier (WA-08) Hold

Wisconsin

Peter Barca (WI-01) Flip

Rebecca Cooke (WI-03) Flip

If you live in any of these congressional districts (or close to them) you absolutely must sign up to volunteer and help! you! yes you! get to decide what America looks like in 2025, is it gonna be Project 2025 and Trump? or Kamala Harris, Tim Walz and the Democrats protecting your right to control your own body, taking action on the climate and making life more affordable? its up to each of us to do all we can to get to the country we want.

[filmmakerdreamst]

P.J.Hogan's 'Peter Pan' is still an underrated masterpiece 20 years later

Peter Pan is a live-action fantasy adventure film directed by P. J. Hogan that reimagines the classic story of Peter and Wendy. The screenplay was written by P. J. Hogan and Michael Goldenberg and was released in cinemas in December 2003. The screenplay is based on the 1904 play Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Upand the classic novel Peter Pan by J.M.Barrie, which was originally published under the title Peter and Wendy.

The film tells the story of a young Edwardian girl, Wendy Darling (Rachel Hurd-Wood) and her two younger brothers John and Michael. On the night she is told she must grow up, a wild, fairy-like boy called Peter Pan (Jeremy Sumpter) flies into her room with his high-maintenance fairy Tinkerbell. When he learns that she tells stories, he whisks Wendy and her two brothers away to a magical Island called Neverland — where you supposedly don’t “grow up” — so that she can mother his henchmen, the Lost Boys. There she fights pirates led by the evil Captain Hook (Jason Isaacs), meets mermaids, dances with fairies, falls in love and grows up.

I have strong family connections tied to Peter and Wendy and J.M.Barrie. My great, great uncle Nico was one of the sons of Sylvia Llewelyn Davies'. He and his other brothers "the Lost Boys" were adopted by J.M.Barrie; which ultimately inspired him to write Peter Pan. Nico’s daughter Laura — my cousin — who I met for the first time a few years ago, told me that she was flown to Australia for the filming of P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan because she was J.M.Barrie’s goddaughter. She told me that she was thrilled with the cast, especially Jason Isaacs, who played Captain Hook and Mr Darling. She also mentioned that Jeremy Sumpter, who played Peter Pan, was a lovely boy. However, she said she was very surprised and sad that the film wasn’t a big success as she really liked what they did with the story. I have loved the fairytale of Peter Pan from a young age, and learning that I am literally part of the family that inspired the story was very exciting and I’ve only begun to internalise it more as I’ve grown older.

When I was in my mid-twenties, I was diagnosed with a high level of Autism. One of my main symptoms was labelled “ageless”, which in simple terms means that one half of me is still a child that I can’t mentally leave behind. I can’t do many things that most adults can do, such as pay bills, drive a car, look after my own well being etc. I flap my hands when I get excited. I bounce. I sometimes speak in a baby voice. I overcommit to things I enjoy. I admit that it was hard to come to terms with the diagnosis when I first received it. But over time, I’ve come to believe that the two can coexist in a healthy way. I believe that I am an adult who is able to develop and grow while still carrying the child within me, and that this is not seen as a bad thing. I think Peter and Wendy can be seen as a reflection of that.

I was first introduced to P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan a few years after it was released (I was maybe nine or ten years old), and I absolutely loved it. It wasn’t only one of my favourite film adaptations, but one of my favourite movies of all time. What surprised me most about the film at that age was how dark and gruesome it was, and full of this underlying sexual tension that I hadn’t expected at all from Peter Pan. Even today, this film still has a special place in my heart. It is made with so much passion and love for the original text that I can automatically put myself back into the story. After watching the film again as an adult, I almost immediately opened my copy of Peter and Wendy and started reading. I would even go so far as to say that I prefer the film to the book. However, part of me wishes that the age rating had been set much higher, as the dark and gruesome moments were some of the strongest parts of the film adaptation. This is possibly why some critics and viewers had difficulty categorising the film at the time.

However, I often consider P.J.Hogan’s Peter Pan to be the same equivalent as Joe Wright’s Pride and Prejudice. (which came out a few years later in 2005, starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen). The film moves at the same dreamlike pace. It is light, dark, colourful and deeply romantic.

I also often prefer P.J.Hogan’s Peter Pan to the 1953 Disney Animation of the same name, even though it’s the version I grew up with and liked. I find it much less straightforward and innocent. Also, the 2003 film is much closer to the original source material, which I loved reading as a teenager, and to J.M.Barrie’s original vision. The film manages to reflect the same intellectual subtext and depth of the novel while retaining the whimsy and magic.

Magical Realism

Peter Pan was a perfect blend of fantasy and realism. A lot of media these days focus too much on “realism” and make their sets and CGI look bland and washed out. It’s a common myth these days that no one likes whimsy anymore; it’s somehow seen as too childish. As a result, much of the magic of fantasy is lost. But in this Peter Pan, a lot of colour was used in the set design and cinematography. Everything was so brightly and colourfully lit. Most fantasy films these days, including the new live-action adaptation of Peter Pan and Wendy on Disney+, are all so gloomy and dark. You almost have to light up the screen to make out the actors’ facial expressions or what’s happening in the scene. But this film understands that a viewer who watches fantasy wants to be swept away, but also wants a certain amount of believability. Although the film contained a good amount of darkness, it did not shy away from being cartoonish either (which I think was partly inspired by the Disney animation), i.e. characters blushing or bouncing on the clouds.

The design of Neverland was breathtaking. I think the CGI, although criticised by some, made the island and creatures look more dreamy and fairytale-like. It was a good combination of CGI for the landscapes and real backdrops for the jungle, so there was enough magic and believability to transport the viewer into the story. A bright colour palette was used for the landscapes, while down-to-earth colours such as browns and greens were used on the ground, such as in “The Lost Boys Hide” under the tree, to give a sense of realism. The costume department also reflected this, from the majestic reds and blacks of the pirates, to the earthly colours of blue and red for the Native Americans, to the natural greens and browns of the Lost boys. I noticed that the colours in Neverland were used as a contrast to the Edwardian London back home, which is realistic but dull compared to the island.

One aspect I liked was that the lighting on Neverland always changed depending on the mood of the scene- unlike the naturalistic lighting on Earth. It was almost as if the island was a living being. For example, when there was a fight on the ship, the lighting was red. When Peter took Wendy to the mermaids, who were scary and frightening, the lighting was dark and blue. This created a surrealistic atmosphere, almost like a fever dream or a kind of nightmare.

Sometimes the environment changed depending on Peter Pan’s mood in the respective scene. I particularly liked how Peter Pan influenced the weather on Neverland. Just his mere presence when he flew to the island changed the entire atmosphere in an instant. His feelings also determined whether it was summer or winter. In other words, its suggested in the film that the longer he has been there, the more the island has become a part of him, so that he can no longer leave it. It’s almost as if the island has transformed him into a magical being.

The exuberant musical score by James Newton Howard: I’ll never forget that. I think that was one of the first movies I saw where I actively noticed the music because it was so brilliant. Even today, the “Flying” soundtrack still gives me goosebumps. It perfectly encapsulates the whimsy, joy and imagination of Peter and Wendy. I loved that there were always different variations. One of my favourite pieces from the movie is ‘Fairy Dance’, which starts off cheerfully and moves up and down depending on the characters’ conflict/what they’re saying in the scene.

Cast

The cast of this film adaptation was magnificent. The look of all the actors not only matched the book description, but also the mood, especially with the Darling family. One of the standouts was Olivia Williams as Mrs Darling. She captured the gentleness of the character perfectly. I also loved the new addition of Aunt Millicent, played by Lynn Redgrave. She fitted into the story so well that I was surprised not to find her in the novel. She had the perfect amount of ridiculousness and hilarity that suited J.M.Barrie’s style.

One particular member of the cast we can probably all agree on that was perfect, was Jason Isaacs, who played both Wendy’s father Mr Darling and Captain Hook. He was certainly a star in this film for sure. I just can not think of anyone who could play him better, especially in a live-action film adaptation. He was particularly good in the role of Captain Hook. When I first saw the film as a child, I did not know that Captain Hook and Mr Darling were played by the same person until my dad pointed it out to me because he was so good. I loved how they portrayed Wendy’s dad as shy and reserved, as opposed to Captain Hook who was flamboyant and sinister. Mirror versions of each other in different realities — that’s a common theme throughout the film. As Captain Hook, Jason Isaacs perfectly captured the essence of viciousness, deviousness and brutality that was necessary for the character. But also the deep loneliness and frustration behind it all. I have seen a quote that was supposedly cut from the film (and never should have been) that provides so much context for his hatred of Peter Pan:

“Imagine a lion in a cage and into that cage flies a butterfly. If the lion was free, it would pay no heed to such creature. But the lion is not free…and so the butterfly drives him slowly insane.” — Captain Hook

They did a really good job of showing how Peter Pan and Captain Hook are mirror images of each other. Peter Pan is a child who secretly wants to be an adult, while Captain Hook is an adult who secretly wants to be a child. Both fight each other for different reasons, but the goal is the same. For example, there is a great scene towards the end where Captain Hook uses his wits to defeat Peter in a fight. Here it becomes clear that there is deep symbolism for the inevitability of adulthood and the loss of childhood. Jason Isaacs really showed off his acting talent here. I liked that he wasn’t portrayed as a “dumb villain”, which he easily could have been.

There were also some great performances among the adults. Most notable was Richard Briers as the ‘pirate’’ Smee. But the child actors, especially the lost boys, really held the movie together. Their solid performances made it so believable that the island was ruled by children. I loved Theodore Chester as Slightly. He was very charming and funny in that role.

Another member of the cast I thought was brilliant was Carsen Grey, an indigenous actress of Haida descent, who played Princess Tiger Lily. I liked that they let her speak her ancestral language, Mohican, in this film. Although this film came out in the early 2000s, it is the only version of Peter and Wendy in which Native Americans are neither erased nor white-washed even though the representation is far from great. Considering how they’re treated in the novel, it’s perhaps for the best overall that they limited some of their scenes. However, I liked how firey she was in this adaptation and not the damsel in distress she was portrayed as in the Disney animation. I think it was a wise decision to cut the infatuation she had with Peter Pan, as it was really just one line in the book that would have added unnecessary drama, and all in all, it would have fallen short if all the female characters were jealous of each other.

They also downplayed Tinkerbell’s jealousy in this regard, portraying it more as her trying to protect Peter Pan’s youth from romantic advances, as hinted at in the novel, and also being sad that Wendy is attracting all of Peter Pan’s attention. Ludivine Sagnier has, in my opinion, succeeded well in making Tinkerbell equally repulsive and endearing, as befits the character.

Wendy Darling

Rachel Hurd-Wood was the perfect cast for the role of Wendy Darling.I was actually surprised to learn that this was her first film role ever, because she was a natural. She effortlessly possessed the same caring nature and charm that makes Wendy so endearing. She is exactly how I imagine the character when I read the story. When people talk about Peter and Wendy, they always mention Tinkerbell, Pan or Hook, but personally I am always drawn to Wendy. She is the real heroine of the story. After all, she was the main reason for Peter to bring her and her brothers to Neverland.

What always amazes me about Wendy’s role in the story is the fact that Wendy literally doesn’t spend much time being a “child” in the time she spends in Neverland. When she’s not escaping death at the hands of mermaids or pirates, she acts as a mother to the ‘lost boys’ and her brothers. She asks herself what she really wants from life. In comparison, she was allowed to behave more like a child at home in Edwardian London. Neverland is not a place where you never grow up. It’s the place where she chooses to grow up. Many people have described Neverland as a manifestation of Wendy’s subconscious as a result of trauma, and I’ve never found that to be more true in this adaptation.

One of the reasons why I think P.J. Hogan’s Peter Pan is the best adaptation of the novel is the fact that the film revolves around Wendy’s coming of age. I loved that they expanded on her love of storytelling and also gave her a tomboyish streak. Instead of just being on the sidelines, she’s able to get involved and fight pirates while retaining many of her feminine traits such as her maternal instincts and romantic feelings for Peter. She makes mistakes and sometimes gets dragged into things she knows she shouldn’t do. But in the end, she triumphs.

In many film adaptations of Peter and Wendy that I have seen, Wendy is either only present in passing or not at all. Characters like Peter Pan, Captain Hook and Tinkerbell always take centre stage, which I think is a strange decision as they are part of Wendy’s story and not the other way around. Peter Pan is meant to metaphorically represent the childhood she does not want to give up (which is why the character is always played by a woman in the original play, as he is a mirror image of Wendy). And Captain Hook (J.M.Barrie also wanted him to be played by the same actor as Mr Darling) represents the dark side of her father, or rather what she imagines adulthood to be. This is particularly emphasised in this film adaptation because he is an important factor in her being told to grow up. The father, the concept of adulthood, and Peter Pan, her childhood, are at constant war with each other.

“You’re not supposed to be like Peter, who kept every good and bad aspect of being a child and can’t tell right from wrong. You’re not supposed to be Hook, either. He let go of everything childish and loving about him and became bitter and evil..You’re supposed to fall in the middle, to hold onto the things about childhood that make it beautiful — the wonder, the imagination, the innocence — while still growing up and learning morality and responsibility. You’re not supposed to be Hook. You’re not supposed to be Peter Pan. You’re supposed to be Wendy Darling.” — @maybe-this-time

The 2023 film Peter Pan and Wendy took a different approach, by making Wendy a kind of powerhouse who always saved the day and outshone Peter Pan overall. In my opinion, the 2003 film adaptation emphasised very well that Wendy really is the yin and yang. She's allowed to be romantic, be rescued by others and at the same time determine her own destiny and stand up for herself. Because that’s what her journey in the adaptation is all about. She is pressured by all the adults in her life to grow up. She allows herself to be seduced with the prospect of an eternal childhood by Peter Pan. Then she realises that it is not self-fulfilling. She is tempted by Captain Hook with the concept of adulthood. And finally, she finds a balance between these two extremes on her own terms. By the end of the film, Wendy has made her peace with growing up while still remaining a child at heart. That requires a certain mental strength that we should all strive for.

Peter Pan and Wendy Darling

In most adaptations of Peter and Wendy, such as Hook and Syfy’s Neverland, the focus is on the title character Peter. In the more recent film adaptation Peter Pan and Wendy, the focus is on Wendy. This film adaptation of Peter and Wendy, on the other hand, sticks more closely to the original source material, as the story focuses on Peter and Wendy’s relationship. This is perhaps the reason why I always hesitate when I watch other adaptations, because these two characters are supposed to go together. It’s definitely a relationship that can be portrayed in all sorts of ways because they are symbolically the same person.

Although there is no romance between Peter and Wendy in either the original novel or the play, Wendy quickly develops romantic feelings for Peter which, as a prepubescent child, he does not consciously reciprocate as he has no concept of love other than that of a mother’s. Although Peter cares deeply for her, he ultimately only longs for her to be the maternal figure that is missing in his life. One could go into the symbolism that Peter and Wendy are one and the same, and that this is an expression of Wendy learning to love herself. But in a literal sense, J.M.Barrie had unintentionally created this very strong potential between the two characters. And I personally feel if your'e going to make an adaptation of Peter and Wendy that potential needs to be explored in some way, even if it’s not necessarily romantic.

Hogan recognised this potential and developed the romantic elements, e.g. ‘the “thimble” from the novel, into a very real and tangible plot. In other adaptations, Peter and Wendy’s relationship is rather one-sided. But in P.J. Hogan’s film adaptation, however, it is not at all. Over the course of the film, Peter and Wendy fall deeply in love with each other.

Rachel Hurd-Wood and Jeremy Sumpter had a remarkable on-screen chemistry for young actors, which helped give the adaptation its own identity. Whenever they interacted on screen as Peter and Wendy, it was — like the glittering pixie dust of Tinkerbell — simply magical. The off-screen chemistry between the two definitely helped make the romance so believable as well. When I was younger, I didn’t like romantic subplots in family films. I personally found that they clogged up the main plot because the “romance” tended to be very one-dimensional- but Peter and Wendy in the 2003 film version were simply enchanting.

In the original novel, J.M.Barrie alludes to the possibility of a romance between the two. In the film adaptation, they go all out. Their love story was written so beautifully and profoundly, while staying true to the original text and J.M.Barrie’s themes. This made the conflict hinted at in the novel of “staying in Neverland with Peter or growing up on Earth with Wendy” even more poignant and relevant, because in reality there was only ever one option. They couldn’t find a way to have both. That made the ending even more “heartbreaking” for me as a child, because even though they had the chance to be happy together, she couldn’t give up on growing up to stay. And he couldn’t give up being a child to leave, even though it was a natural progression for him.

Peter Pan

Jeremy Sumpter delivered a fantastic performance as Peter Pan. Not only did he perfectly match the illustrations, but he also managed to perfectly capture the essence of the charismatic, mischievous little boy from the novel. What’s more, of all the versions I have seen so far, he is by far the most accurate, right down to the clothes made of skeleton leaves, the dirty fingernails, the feral mannerisms, the traumatised soul behind the charm and the downright creepy insinuations. By today’s standards, you could almost take Peter Pan for a grown man who consciously decides not to behave like this.

However, when I watch the film again as an adult, I can now understand why he has reservations about growing up in Edwardian England and would rather remain a “child” in Neverland forever. As Peter says in the film, “Would they send me to school? And then to an office?” I feel like most of us today have so many choices as we get older, but back then it was much more limited. The choices were very restricted in that “heterosexist” environment. You could only be a certain thing, and it was much harder to hold on to the pleasures of life. I can now also understand the initial reactions of Michael and John to Peter: He must have seemed scandalous to people at the time. His bright colours, his inappropriate clothing and his behaviour are repulsive to the boys, but Wendy is immediately fascinated and attracted.  I think it was a deliberate choice that he is the only character with an American accent to set him apart from the rest of the cast; to emphasise the wildness of the character and his non-conformity to the people of Edwardian London.

Another small aspect I liked was the suggestion that the Lost Boys, although they lived with Peter and obeyed his commands, lived in constant fear of him and did not worship him as in other adaptations. (A fear that is justified as Peter tries to kill them more than once in the film). What the 2003 film adaptation captured perfectly about Peter's character was: how terrible of a person he really is. Peter Pan is a hero when he goes on adventures and fights pirates. You could argue — via the quote “Leave Hook to me” (which Peter says to her in the film) — that Peter is Wendy’s split self who can fight her father (Captain Hook) for her, just like antibodies do with germs when we can’t handle them ourselves.

However, when it comes to understanding emotions, caring about others, even his henchmen, the Lost Boys, and doing anything that inconveniences him, Peter Pan is possibly as bad as Captain Hook. This makes Wendy’s decision to leave him all the more powerful. Although she was initially seduced by his adventurous life, she soon realises that his “life” of joy and adventure is not fulfilling at all. Because in reality, there is no real joy. There is no real adventure. In reality, his life is empty because it is not earned. In addition, she realises that she is gradually losing her memory of the outside world, including her parents - a sign that she is “slowly awakening from the dream”. This leads Wendy to realise that she wants more than what he can give her in Neverland (e.g. romantic love) and decides to leave. Being alive means feeling, accepting and growing. However, as long as Peter remains a boy, he can never truly be alive. Peter Pan conveyed this important message, whereas earlier film adaptations, including the Disney animation, did not.

One of the reasons why good adaptations of Peter and Wendy are so hard to come by, especially in this day and age, is not only because they adapt a performative story that exists in layers of subtext. They also work with a protagonist who doesn’t change. Who doesn’t develop in any way, neither negatively nor positively. Not even just physically, but also mentally. (Even Eli from Let the Right One In, the child vampire, changes in the course of the story). At the end of day, Peter Pan is ultimately there to serve someone else’s story. It works in a fairy tale format. But it doesn’t usually translate very well to the screen because it often leads to one-dimensional storytelling. Even if it seems so natural, it doesn’t come naturally.

However, this adaptation allows Peter Pan to grow. The writers expanded on the small aspect from the book, which is the moment when Wendy enters Peter’s life; he begins to feel emotions. Not just love. But anger. Fear. Sadness. Pain. Disgust. And above all: self-awareness. Almost like a version of puberty in condensed time, as if the change suddenly caught up with his body. When Wendy brings this up, Peter immediately rejects it out of fear. I think most of us can all relate to this when we were in the midst of growing into a young adult. We experience feelings that are scary and new, that we can’t yet fully understand or even want to. For Peter Pan, falling in love is exactly what he is afraid of: growing up and no longer being a child. This adds to an interesting conflict that arises between the two when she asks him to leave with her.

“The thing about Peter Pan is, he’s a coward. Had the chance of a lifetime and he bottled it. Just fucked off back to Neverland. All alone, forever he was, by his own hand. Poor old Wendy, she had to grow old without him.” — Skins, 6x07 “Alo”

In the original novel, the reason Wendy can’t take Peter Pan with her (apart from the fact that he refuses to grow up) is the same reason Lyra in His Dark Materials can’t take Pan — the animal manifestation of her soul — on the boat to the land of the dead. She has to split in order to grow up and leave a part of herself behind. She can’t keep both in order to move on. But that does not mean I always agree with the ending either. In which Peter remains a child and takes Wendy’s future descendants to Neverland and back to look after him. It leaves an icky aftertaste, but at least it fits in with the story J.M. Barrie wanted to tell.

Even though the adaptation conveys the same message, that Peter Pan is the manifestation of Wendy’s youth, even to the end. In this version of Peter Pan, that is no longer the case. By the end of the film, the way he holds himself is different. The way he looks wistfully through the open window and solemnly says, “To live would be an awfully big adventure,” : a sign of self-awareness, while Wendy happily reunites with her family. So much so that Tinkerbell has to pull him by the hair to stop him from joining them and reconsidering his decision. Peter is now old enough to know that he loves Wendy. Maybe he’s also mature enough to know what he’s missing, but he knows he can’t have her the way he wants, so he does the most selfless thing he’s ever done in the whole film by letting her go.

There is no such conflict at the end of the 1953 Disney animated film. Peter Pan is described by Wendy as “wonderful”. In reality, everyone else gets their happy ending, except him, because he deliberately chooses not to. Peter Pan very much turns himself into a tragic figure because he is afraid of the most natural thing in the world. He is afraid of life. And I feel like this version of the story knew that and expressed it strongly, which makes me conflicted now as an adult. I’ve seen endings like this before, where two people fall in love but do not end up together because they grow apart or they are both interested in different things, and it’s very important to reach those points in different ways. It very much reflects real life and is also reminiscent of first love. How that love never really fades. It reminds you of simple times, even when you’ve grown up and moved on. That a part of you is still at that age when you look back on it. These endings happen because people grow — which Peter Pan does not.

“Peter in the books lives in oblivious tragedy. He may suspect that he’s not fully happy, but he tends to forget about it… yet this Peter doesn’t… Wendy leaving him and growing up to be a wife of another man is his unhappy thought…It’s the loss of innocence since Peter could not forget this…It’s the process of growing up…all but confirms that Peter’s character arc in the film is one of accepting the fact he too must grow up to be happy.” —  @rex-shadao

And I think that’s the real reason why his character is both the strongest and the weakest part of the adaptation. The writers didn’t make it clear enough that Peter Pan forgets in their version of the character. In the novel, Peter Pan forgets everything automatically, which is why he can exist in this limbo of childhood and not go mad. However, as mentioned earlier, this version of Peter Pan is old enough to remember and, more importantly, to feel. Even though he is the closest to J.M. Barrie’s original vision, unlike his counterpart in the book, he is capable of evolving. That’s why the ending sometimes feels strange to me as an adult.

It was hard to say why I had a strange feeling at first, but I realised that a lot of my mixed feelings stemmed from having seen the film adaptation fresh after reading the novel. Since Peter Pan fully reciprocates Wendy’s love in this version, he ends up being a different character than in the book, which is why I now disagree with them keeping the original ending instead of having him grow up with Wendy. It would symbolise that childhood can co-exist with adulthood, that you don’t have to leave a part of yourself behind. That you can be your true and complete self if you find the balance between the two extremes.

The original ending still works however, in all its bittersweetness. I know what it means and understand what it stands for. Wendy basically says goodbye to her childhood and promises never to forget it. There’s a reason it made such an impression on me when I was younger. It could just be because I’m trying to pick up all the pieces of my broken heart from the floor. But personally, as an adult, I just find it weaker compared to the novel. Sometimes I like to imagine an ending to this version of the story where Peter Pan comes back, having quickly realised that he has outgrown Neverland, but doesn’t meet Wendy again until they are both much older, at a time when Wendy is coming to terms with womanhood and the idea of marriage. Or she even meets his real earth counterpart (if we were to delve into the psychology of Neverland being Wendy’s dream). And their relationship is subjected to the natural test of time and growth.

Peter Pan is an almost perfect adaptation. It matches the humour, the tone and the vision of J.M.Barrie. But I can certainly understand why the film didn’t do so well at the box office. In the month it was released, there was an unfair amount of competition, namely the film Lord of the Rings — The Return of the King. And as an adult, I can now understand why it’s not the film people think of or remember when it comes to Peter Pan adaptations. And it’s not just because it doesn’t fit the elfish, jolly trickster persona that Disney has created.

The film adaptation suffers more from what it doesn’t do — such as maintaining a stable tone and consistent editing — than from what it does. It’s one of those films that would have benefited from being much longer. That way, the inconsistent tone and some of the rushed parts of the adaptation would be much more balanced. It feels like it was missing an extra twenty minutes. For example, the film is narrated by an older version of Wendy, but without the deleted ending where it becomes properly clear that it’s her telling the story to tie everything together, the ending feels a little abrupt. Say what you will about Tim Burton’s adaptation of the Series of Unfortunate Events, but the audience could see where the film’s narration was coming from the whole time. I think if they knew the alternate ending wasn’t going to work (that scene is a classic example of something working well in the novel but not in the film), they should have removed the narrator altogether with the deleted ending and adjusted the film accordingly. They should have extended some scenes so that parts of the film weren’t rushed, such as the introduction, and the story would have been left more up to interpretation as there was no voiceover throughout.

Despite its weaknesses, P.J.Hogan’s Peter Pan is still an underrated masterpiece 20 years later. It is an irresistible film that captivates and warms the heart. The film adaptation has certainly stood the test of time, staying true to the original while adding its own flavour to the story. It is full of magic, wonder and heart. It was clearly made by people who loved the origins of the story and explored where they came from, while also digging deep into the text to reshape the character arcs in a fresh and meaningful way. They succeed in capturing J.M.Barrie’s original message, which is that growing up is a natural progression of life, but that doesn’t mean leaving childhood behind entirely. That it is important to maintain a healthy balance between the two: Taking responsibility while appreciating the joys of life. From the vibrant colour palette to the goosebump-inducing music to the solid performances and gorgeous chemistry between Jeremy Sumpter and Rachel Hurd-Wood, my love for this adaptation will never end, no matter how old I am.

[jazzplusplus]

1972 - Wild Bill Davis Trio au Casino Municipal de Biarritz

[jazzdailyblog]

George Freeman: The Jazz Guitar Maestro

Introduction: George Freeman, a name synonymous with mastery and innovation in jazz guitar, has left an indelible mark on the world of music. With a career spanning over six decades, Freeman has captivated audiences with his unique blend of blues, bebop, and soulful melodies. In this blog post, we will explore the life, music, and legacy of George Freeman, highlighting his contributions to jazz…

[cinemaocd]

Jenny's June Movies

Portrait of Jason (1967) Furiosa (2024) Beijing Watermelon (1989) Jubilee (1978) The Player (1989) Oliver Twist (1948) Ugetsu (1953) Mank (2020) Living (2022) The Wonder (2022) Summertime (1955) Don't Look Now (1973) The Elephant Man (1980) Klute (1971) The Man Who Laughs (1928)

Portrait of Jason: (***) Fascinating documentary that is just a talking head interview. Film making doesn't get any simpler than this, but Jason Holliday is such an interesting subject that it doesn't matter. Director Shirley Clarke brings us along for the wild ride of a long conversation with this gay, black hustler and cabaret performer living in the Chelsea Hotel in the 1960s.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga (***) My favorite so far in the Mad Max saga, the story is rooted in a terrific performance from a child actor (Ayla Brown) melded digitally with Anna Taylor Joy's portrait of the young Furiosa and her rise to the exalted position of Praetorian in the brutal world of the citadel. Containing Easter eggs from all four of the previous outings as well as a confirmation of the mutability of the Mad Max Universe (narration at the end describes the story as a legend whose telling may change depending on the teller), the biggest joy was the quiet, heartbreaking romance between Furiosa and Praetorian Jack (Tom Burke).

Beijing Watermelon (***): After watching Nobohiko Obayashi's House, earlier this year, I was expecting something far crazier than this relatively quiet portrait of a man consumed by helping a group of Chinese students by feeding them from his market stall, to the detriment of his own family and eventually his own health. A memorable fable about the way in which simple acts of care can transform a community, as well as the ways in which ego can play a part in generosity. The movie only gets as experimental and strange as the director's previous work, toward then end, when filming the ending set in China was impossible due to massacre of student protestors in Tianamen Square. Obayashi turns the story into a meditation of film making with a fourth-wall breaking technique to address the difficulties with the viewer. The movie leaves you feeling an ache of sadness especially when you remember the actual history behind it.

Jubilee (**) Derek Jarman directs this violent, bleak look at dystopian Jubilee Britain, featuring a host of punk icons from Adam Ant to Siouxsie Sioux and the Slits. There is also some nonsense about Queen Elizabeth I time traveling into the film. Honestly the most interesting part of the film for me were the glorious aesthetics, with clothes and make-up by Viivan Westwood, who later disowned her work in the film. Adam Ant is the biggest surprise in the movie, he is always charming and watchable, a stand out among the rest of the cast.

The Player (***) Not my first time through this movie, but another viewing solidified it as the top of the pile for 90s Altman. A wonderfully meta film about film making that is so loaded with jokes about film history and industry insider details that it impossible to catch them all on the first viewing. All of this in a tidy film noir package, led by Tim Robbins who plays a souless film executive being pursued by a disgruntled screenwriter.

Oliver Twist (***1/2) Stands out as the best and most memorable new to me film of the month, with a painful caveat. One of the major milestones in director David Leans estimable career, Oliver Twist is marred by his insistence on keeping the character Fagan as he is depicted in the novel, a hateful Jewish stereotype.. The visual look of this film, with its grimy, slicked cobble streets and rooftops of London nightmare fantasy set, would go on to inspire so many movies, but most notably, Carol Reed's The Third Man which came out the following year. Robert Newton is a standout as a terrifying and nuanced Bill Sykes and John Howard Davies ably carries the film as Oliver. Lean beefed up Oliver's role in the last third of the novel, setting up a chilling and dramatic conclusion to the action.

Ugetsu: (***) Another immediate post war film, that is set is Japan of the past in the time of warlords. A pair of couple navigate the coming of war in different ways, leading to devastating unforeseen consequences. A haunting--quite literally--film about war and the inability to ever fully return from it.

Mank (***) This was my second time through David Fincher's dreamy movie, inspired by real life story of writer Herman Mankiewitz, screenwriter of Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, told in a style that closely mimics that classic. While all of it is pretty to look at, and the ensemble cast is up to the task of creating William Randolph Hearst's inner circle, attempts to make real life into too much of a movie, make the whole thing creak at the hinges a bit. Tom Burke stands out as Welles, Amanda Seifreid who I'd previously only seen in Mamma Mia, gives a lovely performance as Marion Davies, Hearsts mistress, while Gary Oldman is transformed through make-up and accent work into Mank. I wish I wasn't so aware of the stage craft, but that too is like the original I suppose and there is enough insider stuff in this movie to make a film nerd like me happy through any number of screenings.

Living (**1/2) a remake of an Akira Kirosawa film, about a dying bureaucrat who does his best to make an impact before he dies, features Bill Nighy in the lead role. Nighy creates a subtle portrait of a man who is practically fossilized in his desk at work, slowly coming to life as he takes on the project of getting a playground built in the post-Blitz London.

The Wonder (**1/2) One can be forgiven for confusing this movie with Lady MacBeth, which also stars Florence Pugh as a young woman in rural Britain, getting involved in a deadly web of intrigue. Like that film, The Wonder features a lot of scenes of Pugh in Victorian dress walking in the windblown landscape, and staring into the camera while she is seated quietly in a room. The setting here is rural Ireland twenty years after the Great Hunger. Pugh plays a nurse who is sent from England to watch a young girl who has supposedly survived months without eating. Hired by the village to either prove or disprove the so called Wonder of the title, the film slowly builds into almost unbearable tension in the final acts. Lovely performance from the whole cast, including, once again, TOM BURKE. (Are you seeing a theme in June Movies????)

Summertime (****): Classic David Lean, classic romance. Is it gay? Well yeah, I think Hepburn's character is a lesbian who has finally met the one dude who does it for her and he fancies her too and it foments a complete crisis of identity. Also it's an ode to women traveling alone and living their best life and having fun and doing walks of shame for the first time and oh I just love seeing this middle aged woman get to be 20 something!. Rosanno Brazzi is so cute and this is the movie that made me fall for him.

Don't Look Now (***): So I watched this and Summertime back to back and wow you could not get two more different views of Venice While Lean's film is more of a straight forward travelogue it's not excessively gritty or excessively pretty. It's balanced and though it is a tourists view it still takes on stuff like throwing garbage in the canal or getting lost. All of those things are present in Don't Look Now but they take on a darker edge. This is a city designed to hypnotize seduce and confuse you and you'd better be careful or lose your life. Features a great twist and absolutely top tier 70s psychological horror with lots of creepy vibes.

The Elephant Man (***): I had not seen this since it was in the theaters and I was so blown away by it. It's every inch a David Lynch film...it's like Eraser head with a big budget in many ways. I seriously can't believe someone watched Eraserhead and said: yeah lets give this guy millions to make our studio film. Even more amazing that the final product is so fucking successful as both a studio film and a distinct piece of Lynchian art. Johnny Gielgud and Wendy HIllier are both in this and both fabulous and Anne Coates is the editor. It's like an ode to British Noir films like Gaslight and The Lodger and especially Oliver Twist--and even a little Pygmalion callback in one scene that HIllier is in. John Hurt plays John Merrick and is heartbreakingly human when those around him can only see a monster. Lynch makes the choice to reveal his face about 45 minutes in and it's so impactful. The makeup is incredible, but also he lets the character exist for a long time so he isn't just the makeup. Anthony Hopkins is amazing playing the Victorian doctor who "rescues" Merrik and ends up exploiting him as well. The real horror of this film is in the realization of his own culpability/responsibility that gets shifted onto the audience.

Klute (***): Part of my Donald Sutherland memorial minifest, this movie really belongs to his female costar. Jane Fonda plays Bree Daniels, a Manhattan sex worker who is being stalked by a former client. There is nothing in The Conversation that isn't done first and frankly better in Klute, using modern technology and paranoia about it to maximum effect. Sutherland plays the titular cop, Klute who has assigned himself to the cause of protecting Daniels. An interesting love story develops between the hardened and wary Daniels and the hardened and wary cop.

The Man Who laughs (***): I got to see this for the first time on the big screen with a new original score performed live, which is the best way to see silent films. Veidt is incredible acting through and over and around this makeup, expressing so much with his eyes. Like The Elephant Man, this is a movie about the way society perceives difference as monstrous. A beautiful love story and a revolutionary social justice vibe tie the room together.

[lokiondisneyplus]

Congratulations to the 'Loki' team on once again being nominated for a Hugo Award!

Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

Doctor Who: “The Giggle”, written by Russell T. Davies, directed by Chanya Button (Bad Wolf with BBC Studios for The BBC and Disney Branded Television)

Loki: “Glorious Purpose”, screenplay by Eric Martin, Michael Waldron and Katharyn Blair, directed by Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead (Marvel / Disney+)

The Last of Us: “Long, Long Time”, written by Craig Mazin and Neil Druckmann, directed by Peter Hoar (Naughty Dog / Sony Pictures)

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: “Those Old Scientists”, written by Kathryn Lyn and Bill Wolkoff, directed by Jonathan Frakes (CBS / Paramount+)

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: “Subspace Rhapsody”, written by Dana Horgan and Bill Wolkoff, directed by Dermott Downs (CBS / Paramount+)

Doctor Who: “Wild Blue Yonder”, written by Russell T. Davies, directed by Tom Kingsley (Bad Wolf with BBC Studios for The BBC and Disney Branded Television)

The Hugo Awards will be presented August 11, 2023, at WorldCon in Glasgow.

[alyygx]

Easy Company Members Sorted Between Surviving and Not Surviving WWII:

Died During the War:

Company Commanders:

First Lieutenant Thomas Meehan III (July 8th, 1921 - June 6th, 1944)

Non-commissioned Officers:

Sergeant Warren Harold "Skip" Muck (January 31st, 1922 - January 10th, 1945)

Enlisted Men:

Corporal Donald B. "Hoob" Hoobler (June 28th, 1922 - January 3rd, 1945)

Private First Class Alex Mike Penkala (August 30th, 1924 - January 10th, 1945)

Survived the War:

Company Commanders:

Captain Herbert Maxwell Sobel (January 26th, 1912 - September 30th, 1987)

Major Richard Davis "Dick" Winters (January 21st, 1918 - January 2nd, 2011)

First Lieutenant Frederick Theodore "Moose" Heyliger (June 23rd, 1916 - November 3rd, 2001)

First Lieutenant Norman Staunton "Foxhole Norman" Dike Jr. (May 19th, 1918 - June 23rd, 1989)

Captain Ronald Charles Speirs (April 20th, 1920 - April 11th, 2007)

Junior Officers:

Captain Lewis Nixon (September 30th, 1918 - January 11th, 1995)

First Lieutenant Lynn Davis "Buck" Compton (December 31st, 1921 - February 25th, 2012)

First Lieutenant Edward David "Ed" Shames (June 13th, 1922 - December 3rd, 2021)

Second Lieutenant Robert Burnham "Bob" Brewer (January 31st, 1924 - December 5th, 1996)

Second Lieutenant Clifford Carwood "Lip" Lipton (January 30th, 1920 - December 16th, 2001)

Non-commissioned Officers:

Technical Sergeant Donald George "Don" Malarkey (July 30th, 1920 - September 30th, 2017)

Staff Sergeant William J. "Wild Bill" Guarnere Sr. (April 28th, 1923 - March 8th, 2014)

Staff Sergeant Herman "Hank, Hack" Hanson (January 3rd, 1918 - May 15th, 1971)

Staff Sergeant Denver "Bull" Randleman (November 20th, 1920 - June 26th, 2003)

Staff Sergeant Darrell Cecil "Shifty" Powers (March 13th, 1923 - June 17th, 2009)

Staff Sergeant John W. "Johnny" Martin (December 8th, 1921 - December 31st, 2012)

Staff Sergeant Floyd "Tab" Talbert (August 26th, 1923 - October 10th, 1982)

Staff Sergeant Charles E. "Chuck" Grant (March 1922 - October 12th, 1982)

Staff Sergeant Joseph John "Joe" Toye (March 14th, 1919 - September 3rd, 1995)

Sergeant Robert Emory "Popeye" Wynn Jr. (July 10th, 1921 - March 18th, 2000)

Sergeant James H. "Moe" Alley (July 20th, 1922 - March 14th, 2008)

Sergeant Wayne "Skinny" Sisk (March 4th, 1922 - July 13th, 1999)

Corporal Walter Scott "Smokey" Gordon Jr. (April 15th, 1920 - April 19th, 1997)

Enlisted Men:

Technician Fourth Grade George Luz (June 17th, 1921 - October 15th, 1998)

Technician Fourth Grade Eugene Gilbert "Doc" Roe Sr. (October 17th, 1922 - December 30th, 1998)

Technician Fifth Grade Joseph David "Joe" Liebgott (May 17th, 1915 - June 28th, 1992)

Private First Class Edward James "Babe" Heffron (May 16th, 1923 - December 1st, 2013)

Private First Class Edward Joseph "Tip" Tipper (August 3rd, 1921 - February 1st, 2017)

Private First Class David Kenyon Webster (June 2nd, 1922 - September 9th, 1961)

*This is not all of Easy Co. just some of the more recognizable names. If I missed anyone that you would like to see listed please message me and I would be glad to add him.

**I was also thinking about adding more info to this list and/or making a separate post with additional details like awards/medals, how and where they were wounded (if at all), and maybe some personal details like where they were born/died, their family (parents, siblings, spouse, children), what they did after the war (if they survived) stuff like that (though that might be a separate list idk yet). I would love to hear your opinion and if you'd like to see something like this. Basically just one large masterpost! Message me and tell me your thoughts!!!! I'm open to ideas!