I.
Here's the warp and woof of photo blogging:
Write about gear, traffic will go up and the number of comments will go up, and yet, inevitably, someone will complain that photography is about photographs, and shouldn't we talk about photographs?
Write about photographs, and traffic will go down and comments will go down. Stick with writing only about work for two weeks, and the place will resemble an all-but-empty saloon in a western town with the dry wind blowing the saloon doors in and out and tumbleweeds blowing by in clouds of dust on the street. Still, I loved the (relatively few) comments about Bob's birds and Paloma's exurban landscapes.
II.
Back in the 'aughts when this blog was young, my boyhood friend Jim's family, whom I have known my whole life, had a Christmas party. They invited a family of new neighbors, who had just come to the United States from New Zealand for the father's job. The family were charming and well-spoken—and, it was later agreed, great company. As they were putting their coats on to go back across the street, the father of the family and I got into a brief conversation for the first time, in the course of which he asked me a very American question: "And what do you do?"
When I answered, "I have a blog," the man reacted with a startled change of expression and physically drew back from me, as if I had said, "I live at a special hospital, but they let me come to Christmas parties!", or perhaps, "I have an important job, I pick up paper in the park with a stick with a sharp point on it! I am very, very careful!" It was all I could do to keep from bursting out laughing. Jim, who witnessed the exchange, suggested that I try to avoid the word "blog" when I tell people what I do for a living.
III.
Even when you have the job that is the perfect job for you and you love it, "work is work."
IV.
You're not always behind, but you can only be caught up for, say, eighteen hours. It's a little like you have an infant who needs to be fed every two hours or a dog that needs to pee every three. (I know whereof I speak, on both counts. All three counts.) It limits your range and your mobility. The same old friend, Jim S., was a national-level prospect in competitive swimming until his early teens, when his improvement began to not keep pace with his peer group (he's happy and fulfilled with his life's work as a book editor). I was frustrated when we were boys because he was eternally "at swimming practice." He describes interminable laps that were timed so that he could almost but not quite keep up with the big clock high on the wall—designed to keep the swimmers striving. He's conscientious and organized, and nearly fifty years later says he still dreams of the frustration of not being able to keep up with that clock. I think of that as a metaphor sometimes. It's not that I work all that hard, but I work hard in the context of my natural energy level, which is low and, like Dr. Johnson's, tends to be intermittent. (Samuel Johnson was bipolar a hundred years before Jean-Pierre Falret first described what he called "la folie circulaire," which translates to circular insanity. Later it was called manic-depression and then later still, bipolar disorder. I'm not bipolar but I do go in waves, up for a while, down for a while.)
We lived next to a large ravine that ran for miles through the countryside and got wider and deeper as it approached the cliffs by the shores of Lake Michigan. Another friend, Jim H., complained that when he wanted to hang out, I was always in the ravine. One thing I liked about it was that when you were down in it, you couldn't see any of the houses, so you could imagine you were in a wild place. The illusion was shattered by other hikers appearing or the calls and shouts of distant kids playing, so I especially liked foggy or wet days when I'd be the only one down there, alone in the vast wilderness of my imagination, like the junior mountain man I would have liked to be when I was twelve.
V.
I like the research, which I do swiftly when I'm focused. When I'm not focused, it can be more like being up to my waist in quicksand without a soul around to save me; I get hopelessly lost up impossible tributaries of the main stream. But the best thing, for me, are your comments. I always have things I want to ask the Commentariat. Often I can't, because the question, no matter how juicy, is so off-topic.
For instance, yesterday I really wanted to ask, who would you nominate as the single greatest male and female actors in the history of the movies? If you had to pick just one of each. But it's not really an appropriate question for TOP, is it? Not really meaningful in any way at all. But possibly fun.
VI.
Blogging should be fun.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Benjamin Marks (partial comment): "Interesting question about the actors. The 'all time' piece is what got me. The standards for what constitutes a riveting performance are themselves a moving target. For instance: The most popular actor in 1865? John Wilkes Booth, according to some. And hey, he may have been the word's greatest Julius Ceasar at the time, but his infamy overshadows any professional reputation for moving an audience in their seats. A more modern example: I have seen some of Sir Lawrence Oliver's famous performances (Hamlet, for instance) and they leave me cold. He seems mannered and stiff. But at the time, he was the bee's knees. And I have seen actors like Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis disappear into parts in ways that made them almost unrecognizable from performance to performance. I recently watched Helen Mirren in 1923 and thought, 'I'd watch her read a phone book.' But the current hot kids like Timothy Chalamet or Ryan Gosling? Not interesting to me at all. I would rather watch paint dry. So my response is that the greatest actors of 'all time' is an empty set, because all performers are creatures of their specific moment (as are we few, we happy few). It's moving targets all the way around."
Mike replies: That's no doubt true on an absolute level, but recently I've been "catching up" on actors who were famous before my time, and enjoying getting to know them finally. The earliest movies I remember as first-run films were late '60s to early '70s onwards. By the way if you like Helen Mirren, see if you can find Prime Suspect, a short (five episodes?) series of TV shows. They are excellent. Feature-film quality. Cop shows often age poorly, but those hold up.
I love these wandering off the chosen path. I ordered two of Paloma’s prints and am smitten of her work, even though I work in an entirely different way. We all probably have ‘ravines’ of our own. Keep it up but throw in the gear posts to keep your numbers up.
Posted by: James Weekes | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 10:19 AM
I am probably not your typical blog reader. I do not spend much time in front of screens. I do have your page saved and visit at least a few times per month. I am here for photography. It can be film or digital, historical or current as well as photographs or the tools used. The writing is good and the comments formatted as you do, are a unique and enjoyable benefit to the writing. I am usually late to comment if at all as the article has long past. If there is no photographic content, I will tend to move on.
[I hear you, Paul, and I know you are out there, for a plural value of "you." I also get a lot of people telling me they really like the off-topic posts, including some people who are deep into photography but also a little "over" the standard online photo fare. It's not 2012 any more. So, as with all things blog-related, it's a balancing act.
Thanks for checking in. --Mike]
Posted by: Paul | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 10:32 AM
You're a writer who happens to publish in the blogosphere. Writers write. As you point out, there's a market into which you cast your writing. Fun is good.
Christian Bale because of his physical and emotional transformations.
Jessica Chastain...because, smart, sharp, gorgeous.
Posted by: Allan Stam | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 11:07 AM
Interesting question about the actors. The "all time" piece is what got me. The standards for what constitutes a riveting performance are themselves a moving target. For instance: The most popular actor in 1865? John Wilkes Booth, according to some. And hey, he may have been the word's greatest Julius Ceasar at the time, but his infamy overshadows any professional reputation for moving an audience in their seats.
A more modern example: I have seen some of Sir Lawrence Oliver's famous performances (Hamlet, for instance) and they leave me cold. He seems mannered and stiff. But at the time, he was the bee's knees.
And I have seen actors like Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis disappear into parts in ways that made them almost unrecognizable from performance to performance.
I recently watched Helen Mirren in "1923" and thought, "I'd watch her read a phone book."
But the current hot kids like Timothy Chalamet or Ryan Gosling? Not interesting to me at all. I would rather watch paint dry.
So my response is that the greatest actors of "all time" is an empty set, because all performers are creatures of their specific moment (as are we few, we happy few). It's moving targets all the way around.
P.s. BTW, to keep things on TOPic, I think it's the same answer to the question "greatest photographer of all time." Atget may have been critically important to the history of the medium, but he doesn't "take me out of myself," which is my standard for whatever art form I encounter. Too much of a gap between what excited him (and other photographers) about his work and now for me to pick up the thread, except in a narrative, historical form. ("Mike, I saw Atget's photographs, and they darn near started a riot in the gallery" -- can't see it.) You could put any of the "greats" in that box and get to the same result. "Greatest of his or her time" doesn't have the same ring, right? Everyone wants to talk about Michael Jordan, the GOAT, not Honus Wagner, the GOHT.
Posted by: Benjamin Marks | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 11:36 AM
I’m 70 now and really don’t enjoy travel just to find a photo. I live in the burbs of Austin and near the house is a park with a brook running through it. Similar to your ravine I leave the beaten path into the wild areas of the park looking for natural views that ignore nearby civilization. Not a bad compromise of age vs landscape.
Oh the actors? I’ll vote for Marlon Brando and use the way back time machine to nominate Mae West. Loved her sassy attitude.
Posted by: Mike Ferron | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 11:58 AM
Greatest actors ever? Yikes. Too hard for me to choose.
Best currently? I’d say Tom Hardy and Saoirse Ronan. Or Viola Davis and Gary Oldman. Hmmmm.
Posted by: Curt Gerston | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 12:00 PM
Maybe people have more to say about gear and less to say about photo appreciation. The "art" side could be seen as a rarified thing and people hesitate to add their two cents lest they misspeak or not sound erudite enough. For example, I don't seem to have as high an opinion of Henri Cartier-Bresson as do others, but that could easily be because I have a very incomplete grounding in the history of photography. I figure it's better to keep my mouth shut. But the fact remains that I am not wowed by his photos. I know, I know, it's heresy, and besides, what do I know. So I don't mention it. I really liked Paloma Dooley's work from a few days ago though, so I can't be all bad.
I do not feel qualified to give a nominee for greatest actor. All I could give would be actors who made an impression on me, which might not mean much. I'd include Philip Seymour Hoffman, Burt Lancaster, Michael Caine, Alec Guinnes, but given enough time I could easily come up with a few more and have no way to cull the list down to one "greatest". And that's just the males.
In grade 11, I was just about the only person in our class who didn't like Catcher in the Rye. I thought even less of Jack Kerouac's On The Road. I wanted to like them both though and I tried. Let me describe how they made me feel. It was a bit like listening to an interview with members of a rock band. They play music, stay up late, are chased by pretty groupies, so it never feels to me like they have something to say to me about my life.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 12:22 PM
I find it hard to believe the entry about Paloma resulted in a desert wind blowing through the doors of the Bodie saloon. Definitely one of the best links in many a day. It’s much like the material I photograph: the world as it is, not necessarily for its beauty, but how humans interact, improve, and destroy the natural environment. A lack of comments doesn’t equal a lack of interest in the material.
As for best actor… To me, that’s like asking what’s the best book ever written. I suppose you ask in order to spark a conversation. But there are too many answers. As a wannabe writer/director, I’m well aware of the importance of the unsung hero, the casting agent. It’s all about casting the right actor for the role. From there the job of the director is relatively easy. For me, having a knowledgeable casting agent is more important than finding the right actor. They know far more than I do about the talent pool and the art of acting itself.
There are so many definitions to the word “best.” Which makes it a mostly unimportant qualifier for me. Maybe in a relative sense, is one actor better than another. Since multiple actors don’t portray the same character, how can we compare? But there are so many variables (writing, directing, lighting, costumes, the ensemble work of the entire cast) that it becomes rather pointless. There are no absolutes in art. Maybe there are in sports? But despite what the Academy awards annually in their numerous categories, there are too many caveats to apply. I’m going to maintain my position as a relativist in this discussion.
Posted by: Kent Wiley | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 12:47 PM
I enjoy your writing and knowledge about photography Mike. I agree with you entirely and as such, you need to make whatever adjustments required to keep the business in a good spot. Since I am most likely atypical, you certainly cannot base your writing on my narrow viewpoint. Appreciate the comment.
Posted by: Paul | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 12:50 PM
I’m starting blogging again - after c20 years. I’m going to take your comments on board!
Posted by: Richard Tugwell | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 01:15 PM
I like the photos. When we travel I always look for places where I might view good photography (or perhaps painting of the photographic sort). I think viewing good photography inevitably rubs off on you. It helps develop your eye and gives you ideas or lessons about how others see and compose good photographs.
Your last two features serve well in that regard. Paloma Dooley just has a unique perspective on a "landscape" I know well from my time in college in L.A. And she's inspired me to spend some time looking past natural beauty in search of something a bit more complex.
And Bob Burnett inspires me to keep up my attempts at bird photography and gives me some ideas about what "works."
Gear is good too though, especially when you feature some unique approach, like your own monochrome rig and that new Fuji GFX. Those sometimes make me consider new uses for the gear I have.
It's all good on TOP, Mike.
Posted by: Terry Burnes | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 01:26 PM
I live on the edge of a huge park within the city. Parts of it are quite wild, since it follows a river valley westward towards the Rocky mountains. We occasionally get warned about wolves, bears, or cougars in the park. Seeing coyotes is common. I love wandering through and whenever I see a little footpath heading off, I pause and see if I can remember what's to be seen along the way. If I can't remember, or it's been a while, I'll take it. There's been some adventures and amazing photos along the way.
As for the blog, yours shows up on my blogroll when you publish, and I take a look. I almost always read all of it, because I can appreciate good writing and the effort that goes into it, even if the topic of the day isn't of particular interest.
Posted by: Keith | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 01:35 PM
I was going to comment on the last post, but it's old now so I'll comment here to keep you company:
I keep coming back to "Cardinal", which is just a beautiful mess. I suppose it's an "error" in having too slow an exposure on takeoff.... but would the perfectly focused and "sharp" shot be better?
I doubt very much that it was planned, but I also wouldn't hesitate in showing that. I have a few...
We could always discuss interesting "failures" and why they work.............
Posted by: Bruce Bordner | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 01:38 PM
When I lived in Laguna Beach, CA I had a photo blog. It was a real photo blog. I posted at least one Photo a day.
It was great exercise. I walked at least 5 miles a day. 3 of that was just walking up and down the hill to get to and from the house.
It lasted 10 years. Then my mom died and it was all over.
I now live in Palm Springs and I still try to take a photo every day but I now put them on Flickr.
One must adapt.
Posted by: John Krill | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 01:52 PM
Regarding item II, at least you didn't reply to the question, "I'm an influencer." That's my trigger for thinking, "So, you're nothing."
Posted by: Albert Smith | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 03:12 PM
I'd like to rephrase your question: instead of the best actor, who was the toughest guy in movies? Charles Bronson gets my vote. You may recall the scene in The Great Escape when Bronson freaks out in the claustrophobic escape tunnel. His buddy slaps him hard to snap him out of his terror. It apparently works, but Bronson cannot resist the admonishment. "Don't do that." Enough said -- they get out free.
Posted by: Allan Ostling | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 04:09 PM
Spencer Tracey? Actress? No clue.
Posted by: John | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 04:17 PM
"it's a balancing act." Yes, and I don't envy all the balancing you have to do!
Occasionally, I will run into several posts that don't really interest me. Easy to read and enjoyable enough, but just don't get my mind working. But then I just wait a couple of days and I'll find several interesting posts, so it all turns out to be quite worthwhile for me.
"Still, I loved the (relatively few) comments about Bob's birds and Paloma's exurban landscapes."
Well, I figured I couldn't add much to the comments about the bird photos and I hadn't gone through all of Paloma's photos on her website in time to comment, so that's my excuse. I very much enjoyed both posts, for what it's worth.
Posted by: Dave | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 04:43 PM
People rate other people based on their professions, and the more money it earns the better the prospects. Worse still, some will decide whether to continue "keeping in touch" based also on your profession.
One of my friends would answer once in a while, "Oh, I'm in the packaging and delivery business."
"What kind of goods do you handle?"
"I an undertaker."
Sometimes, I would answer, "I am a writer." I can almost sense that half of my new acquaintances have lost interest keeping in contact.
Posted by: Dan Khong | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 05:00 PM
My blog (now largely but not entirely dormant) is even older than yours, so I remember well the glory days of blogging. That said, to your first point, please be wary of the social media trap of relying on "engagement" as a sign of success. To social media, "engagement" means sharing and commenting on posts, and the more that is done, the more successful the post (and by extension, the platform) is seen to be. But this is also why social media has become so toxic; with "engagement" as the KPI, or key performance indicator (sorry for the buzzword), people and trolls and bots are piling on the divisive, antagonistic, and socially destructive posts like crazy, because they're the ones that get people fired up and generate the most comments and shares ("engagement!") and thereby attract the most advertisers (not even kidding about that). This is deliberate manipulation on the part of platform, posters, shit-disturbers, and even advertisers.
F-that, I say. Personally, I like your off-topic posts quite a bit, and I prefer reading them to strictly gear-oriented ones, as I am well over my GAS phase. I like your perspective on things, and the humour and good sense you bring to various topics. And I rarely disagree with whatever you have posted, or feel the need to provide a counterpoint or whatever. So I ENJOY the post but don't necessarily ENGAGE with it, because I'm not a fan of engagement for the sake of engagement. (For example, I am annoyed when a recipe on a food blog has 200 comments and 195 of them are just "OMG this was so delicious!" That isn't helpful.)
I suspect I am not alone in this. Just because there are fewer comments doesn't necessarily mean there is less enjoyment. But I do understand how the ringing silence of few or no comments can make it feel like nobody's there.
Posted by: Ed Hawco | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 05:09 PM
There are 8 billion of us. Naming a greatest of all time anything is, well, fun because there are 8 billion of us.
Female actor: Cate Blanchett or Billie Piper.
Male actor: Pedro Pascal or Denzel Washington.
Ask tomorrow: There are Asian actors who deserve the recognition.
Greatest photographer: Eugéne Atget or Mike Disfarmer. Wait, Hellen Levitt or Sally Mann.
Well, there are 8 billion different opinions.
Posted by: Omer | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 05:11 PM
Maybe just having a "gear day" might be a nice easy way to write about gear, where people share something interesting about their personal stuff. You post a few selects, and the rest go into comments. You kind of did this recently with your "oldest lens" post. You could have all sorts of similar topics.
Also, just asking for user experiences with a sample photo or two, when new gear arrives (after it becomes available) might be interesting for people, a nice lazy way to get personal reviews of new equipment without the stress of doing it yourself.
Posted by: John Krumm | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 05:20 PM
Alright, you have inspired me to attempt to comment more often. I really enjoyed your last two posts, both inspiring in different ways. I also realised I never followed up my last comment from a month ago about my experience using the GFX100RF for a few hours. Short story: it’s an amazing camera but not for me.
As for actors, I’ve given up trying to think of the greatest and will offer my favourites instead. Cate Blanchett: I could watch her in anything. Such a powerful performer. And Nicolas Cage. Yes, he’s been in some terrible movies to pay the bills, but you can’t deny his range from Raising Arizona to Pig. And playing himself in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is pure fun, for both him and us.
Posted by: Jed | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 06:20 PM
The real benefit is this made me go look up Honus Wagner, the GOHT!
I have a feeling Michael Jordan might have been surpassed in younger minds than mine.
Posted by: RayC | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 06:22 PM
I was really delighted to read and later return to the article and video clip of Paloma Dooley...
I would make the point that just because there were few comments does not mean it was not appreciated and enjoyed.
I intent to return to that post again in the future and explore more of Paloma's content ...
Posted by: Matt O'Brien | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 07:25 PM
Re "who would you nominate as the single greatest male and female actors in the history of the movies?"
I'm having trouble with the very concept. I understand Greatest-Of-All-Time thing is a bloggy thing to do, but what's it all about?
Can a transformative performance be irremediably rebated by other roles that a struggling performer had to take on to make ends meet? The GOAT approach says yes. Ranking means that everyone-but-one is a loser.
The current political situation is all about this very thing: make as many losers as possible.
You used to run a "Random Excellence" series that spoke of a very different world view. Could use more of that these days!
[Actually, I agree with you Ciaran.
What it's all about though is...leads. I have a narrow view of movies, because I watch so few. But I'll make a list as comments come in, and if someone names an actor I've never heard of, I'll put them on the list and hopefully make time to watch them in something. So it's not "the one" I'm after, it's to find out who a variety of other people feel is No. 1, which will expand my horizons.
I've gotten a few nice leads so far! If you can believe it, I've never seen Daniel Day-Lewis in anything. That's an obvious hole in my personal experience, and one I already knew about. But commenters mentioned Gary Oldman, Jessica Chastain, Tom Hardy, and Saoirse Ronan--never heard of any of them. Well, now I have!
And hopefully others might get some valuable tips too!
Kind of exciting actually. --Mike]
Posted by: Ciaran Hopkins | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 09:39 PM
Gear is easy to talk about, photography less so. And I've always felt that people truly interested in photography are a far smaller group than most people imagine.
Also, it's interesting that we're still dividing our judging of actors' abilities by gender for some reason.
Posted by: TC | Tuesday, 22 April 2025 at 10:16 PM
"I'm not bipolar but I do go in waves, up for a while, down for a while."
For me, when the waves are semi-regular and predictable, I'm happy and feel productive overall. When the waves become irregular I'm miserable.
Posted by: Jeff Hartge | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 12:23 AM
I've been reading for a long time Mike. I subscribed to your PDF in the day! I don't care what you write about, I read it. A good writer makes anything interesting.
Posted by: Peter G | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 05:08 AM
+1 for “Gear Day”
Posted by: Bob G. | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 07:54 AM
After reading the New York Times and the (Manchester) Guardian, TOP is my next port of call. You never fail to amuse, educate, and enternain me. Keep it up
Posted by: Thomas Mc Cann | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 10:28 AM
Easter Monday is a bank holiday in England and, in keeping with tradition, it rained most of the day, so we decided to watch the BFI’s
( Britsh Film Institute) top three British films of all time: The Third Man, Brief Encounter, and Lawrence of Arabia. My wife had not seen any of them before and liked The Third Man the most followed by Brief Encounter with LOA coming in third, echoing BFI’s order. We both agreed that whatever ‘it’ is, it exists in actors like Peter O'Toole.
There was a line in Lawrence Of Arabia that made me think of your post on politeness.
Prince Faisal, played by Alec Guinness:
"With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.".
Posted by: Sean | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 10:58 AM
OK, I'll tackle the actor/actress question (since the comments aren't closed yet).
Choosing "best" of anything is impossible, in my view. (Like choosing the most beautiful woman.)
I don't watch many movies anymore, but here are some actors and actresses I've liked with the movie:
Dennis Weaver - Duel
Meryl Streep - The Devil Wears Prada
Jack Nicholson - The Shining or Chinatown
Spencer Tracy - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
Janet Leigh - Psycho
Judy Garland - The Wizard of Oz
Jimmy Stewart - Rear Window
Grace Kelly - Rear Window
Cary Grant - North By Northwest
Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove or . . .
Robert Shaw - Jaws
Tom Hanks - Saving Private Ryan
Russell Crowe - L.A. Confidential
Posted by: Dave | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 11:30 AM
At 83, I'm in the de-accession phase. New gear doesn't excite me, as what I have is sufficient. My intent is to sell off the non-Lumix stuff, keep some antique pieces (like the Speed Graphic), and invest what time I have remaining in "mining" my collection of film and digital images for the one-in-a-thousand that are print-worthy. (Since the digital part is over 200 thousand, 200 prints will keep me going :} )
Re the photography part, de gustibus non est disputandum. Some of the famed "masters" do not float my boat. My own tendency is to make prints that, stylistically, follow the lead of Andrew Wyeth's paintings: "What can I leave out?"
Posted by: MikeR | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 12:34 PM
Gear? Photos? Off-topic? I read all of it but I rarely comment.
I still post photos to my blog. I do this mostly for myself and don't get many visitors and even fewer comments.
Greatest actors? I can't say who is the greatest but my favorites might be Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn--especially in "The Philidelphia Story."
Posted by: DavidB | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 12:40 PM
I for one loved Paloma’s Exurban Adventures. I love learning about other people with a vision and the way they pursue it. Thanks for sharing that.
Posted by: Hans Giersberg | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 04:08 PM
Cary Grant - makes me laugh in 'Bringing up Baby' and 'His Girl Friday'. He does serious in 'An Affair to Remember', holds everyone's attention in 'North By Northwest' and 'Charade', is jocular all through 'Operation Petticoat' ..and then gave it all up to look after his daughter. He embodies each character ..he doesn't just wear the clothes and speak the lines. [But Marlon gets a nod for perfectly spoofing 'The Godfather' in 'The Freshman'!]
Best actress? Cher's great in 'Moonstruck', Julia Roberts in 'Erin Brockovich' (with a walk-on part for Erin Brockovich herself) ..but Bessie Smith in 'St Louis Blues' just brings me to tears ..and that was made in 1928 ..only one year after sound came to the movies!
Posted by: David B. | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 05:18 PM
Actors don't interest me very much, but some movies do. I recently sent to my son a list of my five best fight scenes in movies, all of them fairly recent -- that is, not more than 30 years old, or so. (This is useful in my work as a thriller novelist. Or at least I like to think that.) My one qualification was, no fantasy. No impossible stuff. No John Wick. Also, good camera work. One of my top five even has a lady photographer in it, though from 1881.
[Well c'mon, aren't you going to give us the list?!]
Posted by: John Camp | Wednesday, 23 April 2025 at 10:27 PM
35 comments and no one has yet asked how you came to prefer warp and woof over warp and weft. I’m asking a writer….
[It's the more common of the two terms, which are interchangeable. No significance to the choice. --Mike]
Posted by: Richard G | Thursday, 24 April 2025 at 08:07 AM
It is a pity that you get fewer views when talking about photographs than gear. It may depend on the particular type of photography you choose to discuss. Landscape and wildlife photography can be visually interesting, but photography that plays with light, form, line and people going about their business, using aesthetic and humanistic elements (Kertesz, Bresson, Raghu Rai, Pentti Sammalahti, Vanessa Winship, Rui Palha, Alex Webb) just to name a few off the top of my head, might generate interest and discussion as a more potentially complex and challenging art form.
As for actors - very difficult. Repertoire and skills, Daniel Day Lewis, and perhaps Kate Winslet. But who can ignore Cary Grant, Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Anthony Hopkins, Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Glenda Jackson and Cate Blanchet? And many more. So difficult to compare such charismatic screen presences.
Posted by: Robert | Monday, 28 April 2025 at 09:14 AM