Tomorrow is Forever is an Understatement

Jennifer's working her way through a list of classic films–watching and studying them to see what makes them great.  Well, our feature film in today’s episode was NOT on that list.  It just landed in Jennifer's Youtube feed, it was free, and she thought “OK, why not?”  Perhaps Tomorrow is Forever landed in her feed because, as she was recording this, it was right after Christmas, and there was a little Christmas tree spotted in this movie.  But is Tomorrow is Forever a Christmas Movie?  Is it even a GOOD movie?  She'll figure it all out in today’s episode of the Vintage Century Idle Hour.

Transcript

I’m working my way through a list of classic films–watching and studying them to see what makes them great.  Well, our feature film in today’s episode was NOT on that list.  It just landed in my Youtube feed, it was free, and I thought “OK, why not?”  Perhaps Tomorrow is Forever landed in my feed because, as I am recording this, it’s right after Christmas, and there IS a little Christmas tree in this movie.  But is Tomorrow is Forever a Christmas Movie?  Is it even a GOOD movie?  Let’s figure it out in today’s episode of the Vintage Century Idle Hour.

Theme Song~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LORENZO:  Greetings, listeners.  Allow me to introduce you to our host, Jennifer Passariello.

Thanks, Lorenzo.  Hey, what have you been doing with yourself?  It’s been a few days since we’ve been in the studio together.

LORENZO:  Is this a studio?

Well, closet.  Studio, closet, same difference.  What have you been doing lately?

LORENZO:  Taking a class.

Taking a class?  Well, that’s really cool, Lorenzo.  What are you studying?

LORENZO:  Acting.

Acting?  Really?  What made you want to take that up?

LORENZO:  Well, since our show is about movies, I thought it might be a good background to have.

Ah.  That’s a good idea, actually.

LORENZO:  I’ve been learning some of the lines from this week’s movie.

Tomorrow is Forever?

LORENZO:  Yes.

Wow.  Can you play a scene for us?

LORENZO:  Yes.

Oh, wait, I should take a moment to introduce you.  Listeners, please meet Lorenzo, my AI-Generated…

LORENZO:  Don’t say it!

Announcer and Super Fan…and actor.

LORENZO:  I don’t know why you have to tell everyone I’m AI-Generated.

What scene are you going to play for us?

LORENZO:  The scene where John denies to Elizabeth that he is her dead husband.

Oh, that’s an important scene.  Do you need me to play Elizabeth?

LORENZO:  Yes, please.

I don’t know the lines.

LORENZO:  I have them on this sheet of paper. You can have it.

Oh, OK, thank you.  You know, John is played by Orson Welles in the movie.  Those are pretty big shoes to fill.  Do you think you can do it?

LORENZO:  Of course.

Wow.  OK, let’s do it.  I think you have the first line.

LORENZO:   ‘If you want to believe that I am John MacDonald, you can persuade yourself that I am.’

‘Will you tell me the truth?’

LORENZO:  ‘This is the truth:  If you want to stop living in the present, you can reach into the past. But you'll never get back what you lost.  You'll only lose what you have.    You have so much more to lose now than you had 20 years ago.’

Hmmm.  Something is not quite right, Lorenzo.

LORENZO:  What do you mean?

I’m not feeling it.  I think it’s the accent.  In this scene Orson Welles has an Austrian accent.  Too bad you don’t have that kind of accent.

LORENZO:  [Austrian Accent].  Let’s try it again.

LORENZO?  Is that you?

LORENZO:  Of course.

How are you doing that?  

LORENZO:  It’s acting.  Let’s try it again.

OK.  This is sort of blowing my mind, but go ahead.

LORENZO:  ‘If you want to believe that I am John MaDonald, you can persuade yourself that I am.’

‘Will you tell me the truth?’

LORENZO:  ‘This is the truth:  If you want to stop living in the present, you can reach into the past. But you'll never get back what you lost.  You'll only lose what you have.    You have so much more to lose now than you had 20 years ago.’

Wow.  I can’t get over that, Lorenzo.

LORENZO:  [Italian accent]. Better than Orson Welles, right?

Better than Orson Welles?  Uh…no, but…well, I just can’t get over it, that’s all.  You’re really quite…something, Lorenzo.

LORENZO:  [Austrian accent.] Thank you.

Short Musical Segment Break~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today’s Silver Screen Adventure takes us to Baltimore, Maryland, 1918–at the very end of World War 1.  Our film is Tomorrow is Forever–and no, it isn’t a science fiction film.  

• I don’t know why that sounds like a science fiction title to me, but it does. 
• No, this is a film about loss and grief and idealized memory.  Sounds pretty peppy, doesn’t it?  
• I had actually never heard of this film before, but it came up in my YouTube feed along with some holiday movies like The Shop Around the Corner and Miracle on 34th Street—which led me to believe Tomorrow is Forever was a Christmas story.

Sidebar:  This episode will be airing–let’s see, when is this going up?...January 24th, I believe.  But I’m actually recording it in that weird space between Christmas and New Years.  I still want it to be Christmas time, but it feels like people are starting to move on.  I went to Walmart today to get some groceries, and they were putting out Valentine’s Day candy.  I just find it so depressing.  If I ruled the world, I would make all the stores and radio stations play Christmas Music until New Year’s Day.  Doesn’t that sound reasonable?  I mean, some of us are still processing the holidays.  

I got us totally off track.  Tomorrow is Forever came up with all these Christmas movies, and part of the story is, indeed, set around Christmas time.  Does the setting alone classify a film as a “Christmas” movie?  The answer is no…but more on that later.

Claudette Colbert, who played one of the lead roles, apparently said this was one of her favorite films.  I hope another of her favorites was It Happened One Night, because I loved her in that!  Now, interestingly, Tomorrow is Forever was billed as “The Great Drama of our Time.”  For context, it had some pretty stiff competition for that title.  Tomorrow is Forever was released in 1946—the same year It’s a Wonderful Life and The Best Years of Our Lives came out–along with several other notable films.

Ok, before we go any further, let me quickly review how I am tackling all of the movies in this series: 

•  I’m watching each film in this series at least two times.  The first time, I just watch it from start to finish to get familiar with the story and the characters.  
• The second time, I do a slow, close viewing of the film, stopping frequently to rewatch critical scenes and taking notes the whole way. 
•  Now, I know most people aren’t going to watch a film like that–and really, you shouldn’t need to.  Films are to be enjoyed and understood without having to go through it with a microscope.  
• But, what can I say—I enjoy the close read of these films.  It enhances my enjoyment of them.

Tomorrow is Forever was based on a serialized novel of the same name by Gwen Bristow that had been published in 1943.  Lenore Coffee wrote the screenplay from that source material.  The story was dramatized in the film we are discussing today, but was dramatized for radio as well.  The film version starred

• Orson Welles as John MacDonald/Erik Kessler
• Claudette Colbert as Elizabeth Hamilton
• George Brent as Lawrence Hamilton, and
• In her film debut, a very darling seven-year-old Natalie Wood as little Margaret
• You know who also was in this film?  A very young Richard Long.  You might not know his name (I actually don’t know what other films he was in), but I recognized him from a Twilight Zone Episode he was in called Number Twelve Looks Just Like You.  He played several roles in that episode.  He was Uncle Rick, Dr. Rex, Sigmund Friend, Dr. Tom, Tad, and Jack.  I couldn’t watch him in a scene in Tomorrow is Forever without thinking of him 20 years older in the Twilight Zone.  

And now for the Academy Awards stats. 

[Pause.]

There are none.  No, it wasn’t nominated for any awards.  Now, I’m not familiar with the director of Tomorrow is Forever-–Irving Pichel.  I think maybe his biggest claim to fame is that he discovered Natalie Wood.  But I’m not sure.  Hold on…let me look him up and see what other films he directed.  Let’s see if any of them sound familiar.

[Look up…]

OK, what have we got, here? It looks like his films came out between 1932 and 1954.

• The Most Dangerous Game
• Before Dawn
• Beware of Ladies
• The Man I Married
• Earthbound
• Dance Hall
• Secret Agent of Japan
• Happy Land--I think maybe Natalie Wood was in that one, too.

None of these look familiar...

• Something in the Wind
• The Miracle of the Bells...is THAT familiar?  No, I think I'm thinking of The Bells of St. Mary's.

What else?

• Oh!  Wait a minute!  Here we go.  Irving Pichel directed Destination Moon in 1950!  My dad talked about that film because he saw it in the theater when it first came out and he thought it was great.  That was an important film, too, because it was one of the first real, science-based science-fiction movies produced.  But, other than Destination Moon, I just don't know any of Pichel's other movies.

OK, are you ready to dive into Tomorrow is Forever with me?  If you haven’t seen this film, now is a great time to pause this podcast and watch it.  I watched it for free on Amazon Prime, but, I think it was only going to be free there for a few more days.  I have a feeling you might be able to see it on Youtube, if you just do a search for it.  But if you do go and watch it, please promise me you’ll come back.  Otherwise, settle in and and let’s keep each other company as we break this movie down.  Let’s take a little musical break and then take a deep dive into Tomorrow is Forever.

Featured Song (Long Form)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How shall we begin?  Let’s take a look at the basic plot line for Tomorrow is Forever.

LORENZO:  You can go to my friend for assistance..

Your friend?  Oh, yeah…

LORENZO and JENNIFER:  Old Chatty.

RIght, Chat GPT.  I did use Old Chatty last time to speed things up a bit, that’s true.  But you know what?  I already went to old Chatty and I didn’t love the summary that he provided.

LORENZO:  You didn’t?

No, not for Tomorrow is Forever.  I did, however, find a nice summary on the Turner Classic Movies website.

LORENZO:  Well, you don’t have to hurt his feelings.

Whose feelings?

LORENZO:  Old Chatty’s.  

Well, I won’t tell him if you don’t.

LORENZO:  I wouldn’t dream of it.

Here’s our basic plot, as laid out by Turner Classic Movies–

LORENZO:  Jennifer–

Yes?

LORENZO:  Will there be any spoilers?

Oh, yeah, good call out.  Listeners, there will be some spoilers here, so bear that in mind if you haven’t seen this film and feel like you might want to.

All right, here we go…

• In Baltimore, Maryland, on Dec 20, 1918, Elizabeth MacDonald receives word that her husband of one year, John Andrew MacDonald, has been killed overseas in the War.  – We are with Elizabeth when she reads the telegram, and it’s especially sad, because WWI has just ended, so she was looking forward to John’s return.  Oh, it’s also important to note that John volunteered to fight in the war.  This becomes somewhat more important later in the film, as his son ends up doing the same thing–volunteering to enlist to fight in WW2.

• Unbeknownst to Elizabeth, John has actually survived, but is severely injured and disfigured. Believing he would be a burden to her, John chooses to let her believe he is dead. He assumes a new identity as Erik Kessler, an Austrian immigrant, and disappears from her life.

LET ME STOP RIGHT HERE.  This all happens very early in the film, and it’s where, in my opinion, this story begins to lose some plausibility.  Up to this point we are led to believe that theirs is a love for the ages.  Elizabeth has a flashback to when she learns that John enlisted in the war effort.  This was actually a pretty cool scene.  She’s looking in the mirror in the present day, but in the reflection we see a scene from several months prior play out in the background.  They are newly married, and very much in love.  So, whatever happened to “till death do us part?”  At the first tragic turn, the marriage falls apart.  John would rather die than come back to Elizabeth wounded as he is.  This seems to me like a flimsy plot twist–especially in light of the fact that when we see John twenty years later, he seems to have a fairly full life.  He has a job, he has taken in a foster daughter, he’s been livin’ life.

I want to play the clip here in which John’s doctor, Dr. Ludwig, tries to talk some sense into him.  John tells Dr. Ludwig he ‘wants to die.’  By the way, John’s voice is a bit muffled here, and that’s because his head is all bandaged up.  We’re hearing him through the bandages, so he might be difficult to understand.  He wants to die.  It’s enough to know that for his part.  Listen, though, to the doctor.

[Clip - The Great Mistake]

There’s a great line in there:  Dr. Ludwig tells John, “I can heal you, but she can make you whole.”  But John doesn’t even give Elizabeth a chance.  He tries to do all the thinking for both of them–and he doesn’t do a very good job.  Dr. Ludwig even tells him, you are making a great mistake–but John won’t listen.

Back to our plot line…

• Years pass, and Elizabeth marries Lawrence–or Larry–Hamilton, a kind and wealthy industrialist, and Elizabeth’s former boss.  Together, they create a new family, raising John’s son Drew, as well as a son Larry and Elizabeth have together, named Brian.  Theirs is a happy life. 
•  However, darkness looms on the horizon.   World War II is breaking out in Europe.  John–now living as an Austrian refugee–comes back to Baltimore with a little foster daughter, Margaret.  It’s only a matter of time before John runs into Elizabeth–especially because he is now working as a chemist FOR LARRY HAMILTON.  What are the odds, right?  Because Larry and John had never met.  This is a total coincidence.  John meets Elizabeth at a party, and while he recognizes her immediately, she doesn’t recognize him.  He’s had plastic surgery, so he looks different—to her, but not to us.  He looks exactly the same, only older.

• Anyway, tension starts to rise as John–now going by the name of Erik–becomes close to Elizabeth's family, particularly her eldest son, Drew–and remember, Drew is also John’s son. Well, guess what?  Drew wants to enlist with the RAF (the British Royal Air Force) to fight with the allies in WW2.  
• Erik, haunted by the traumas of his past, tries to protect Drew from the horrors of war while grappling with his unresolved feelings for Elizabeth and the life he left behind.

• Elizabeth is horrified by the thought of Drew joining the war effort, fearing she will lose him just as she had lost John twenty years earlier.  The family starts to implode at this point because of Elizabeth’s anxiety over Drew insistence on joining the RAF.  

Now, there is a really awkward scene on this score in the dining room at the Hamilton’s. The topic of Drew enlisting comes up again.  Drew and John had just been talking about the war, and Elizabeth starts to believe that John has been encouraging Drew to enlist.  Now, imagine this scene:  John is just sitting there quietly as Elizabeth completely melts down as Larry tries to comfort her.  Let’s listen in on the world’s worst luncheon.  

[Clip]

Now, things go on for a bit, and Elizabeth starts to suspect–correctly, of course–that Erik is John MacDonald.    For his part, John repeatedly denies it.  There is a climactic scene in which Elizabeth insists that Erik is John.  But John tells her she needs to let go of the past.

[Clip]

I should mention that earlier in the film there is an exchange between Larry and John where Larry confesses that he never gave Elizabeth a chance to “grow up,” having coddled her and never forced her to confront–and ultimately deal with–the loss of John so long ago.  It seems both Larry and John over-protected Elizabeth, and now she can’t face the prospect of Drew going off to war.  Although, honestly, what mother is super cool with that?

Back to our plot line…

• At the end of Tomorrow is Forever, Erik Kessler (formerly John MacDonald) makes a poignant sacrifice. As we know, Drew is determined to enlist in World War II despite the dangers. Erik, haunted by his own wartime experiences and desperate to shield Drew from the horrors he endured–and also to give Elizabeth a chance to let Drew go– chases after him and convinces him to return home, which he does.

Now, it’s at this point that we have a climactic speech from John-as-Kessler.  

[Clip]

Ah, and that’s where we get the title of our film.  This speech ignites a transformation in Elizabeth.  She goes upstairs and helps Drew pack to go off to war.  She is now ready to let him go.

She is also ready to let her old life go–and she’s ready to let John go–and she lets him go for good.  John collapses and dies shortly after this scene.  His death is pretty dramatic.  He is holding a love letter Elizabeth had written him long ago, and when he falls to the ground, the letter falls in the fire place, burns, and only remnants remain.  Very symbolic of Elizabeth’s past:  only remnants now remain, and she can move on.

Oh, incidentally, little Margaret, who is left an orphan, goes to live with Larry and Elizabeth, and everyone lives happily ever after.  Except John, I mean.  Well, and the world at large, which is quickly moving into the deadliest war in all of human history.  But besides all that, everyone lives happily ever after.

OK, so that’s our plot.  Let’s take a brief intermission, and when we come back, I give you my official rating of this film.  I’ll let you know if I felt this film was unwatchable, watchable, or re-watchable.  

Back in a moment.

Intermission~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overview of the Rating System~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, so let's go through my rating score item by item.

Story:  Was this an interesting and entertaining story worth telling?

• 3 Diamonds.  It was OK.  I didn't think the premise was all that special, and the telling of the story was not particularly moving or very thought-provoking.  I'm giving it a middle of the road rating.

Character Development:  Were the characters dimensional?  Did their actions ring true?

• 3 Diamonds, bordering on 2 Diamonds.  Did their actions ring true?  Not really.  I didn't believe these characters. I thought John's decision to just give up his life because he was wounded was abrupt and implausible.  I also didn't really like Elizabeth.  She didn't seem to love Larry well.  She tells him--right after he proposed to her--that she sort of figured he was going to, and by the way, she won't ever be able to love him as much as she loved John.  He took that in stride and married her anyway.  And then there was John, telling Elizabeth that she was really grieving the loss of John, but the loss of her carefree youth.  He may be right, but what exactly leads him to that conclusion?  Women do grieve their dead husbands.  Oh, and what about Elizabeth's rapid change of heart after her talk with John.  Now she not only supports Drew's resolve to go to war, but she helps him pack.  It all just seemed too tidy, and no, it didn't really ring true.  

Writing:  Was the dialogue beautiful, funny, or poignant?  

• 3 Diamonds. There were a couple of lines that were interesting, but all-in-all, I wasn't really moved by the dialogue here.

Pace:  At what speed did the story unfold?

• I'm giving this 4 diamonds.  It was a tad slow in parts, but for the most part, the story moved along at a pretty good clip.

And that leads us to discussability.

3 Diamonds.  I feel like we exhausted everything there is to say about this movie.  There isn't a lot to it that makes me want to dig deeper.

So, we have a score of: 

[Drum roll] 3.2 Diamonds, which ranks Tomorrow is Forever as "Watchable."  I wouldn't necessarily watch it again, but it wasn't completely intolerable.  

And that does it for my official review of Tomorrow is Forever.

Special Segment~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LORENZO:  What’s that?

What’s what?

LORENZO:  That music.  Is that ‘Jingle Bells’?

Why yes, it is.

LORENZO:  Is it Christmas time again already?  How time flies.

No, it’s not Christmas time AGAIN, it’s Christmas time STILL.

LORENZO:  Christmas was over a month ago.

Well, I know that’s what the calendar says, but I can keep Christmas in my heart, can’t I?  Or at least here on the podcast.

LORENZO:  If you must.

I must.  Well, and anyway, I want to talk about what constitutes a “Christmas movie.”  I’m sure you’ve heard of the big “Die Hard” debate.

LORENZO:  No.  What’s that?

Well, there’s always a lot of talk about whether the movie Die Hard is a Christmas movie or not.  Some people think it is, others disagree.

LORENZO:  What do you think?

I honestly have no idea.  I’ve never seen Die Hard.  What I gather, though, is it takes place around Christmas time–much like Tomorrow is Forever takes place around Christmas time.  Some people think that’s enough to categorize a movie as a Christmas movie.

Oh.

I DON’T think that’s enough.  But to help us think this through, I’m turning to the online magazine The Hollywood Reporter, which has an article on this.  This is what the author of the article, Jeremy Arnold has to say:

What makes a movie a Christmas movie?

Is it a matter of release date? No, because that would eliminate Miracle on 34th Street (1947) and Christmas in Connecticut (1945), two classic Christmas films released in the summer, as well as many other favorites that opened prior to Halloween, such as The Shop Around the Corner (January, 1940), Holiday Inn (September, 1942) and White Christmas (October, 1954).

Is it a matter of marketing? No. Miracle on 34th Street, among others, had no hint of Christmastime in its one-sheet. (A one-sheet is a document that summarizes a film for purposes of sales and publicity.)

Is it a matter of setting? Partially. A Christmas movie certainly must have some degree of holiday setting, but the setting itself is not enough to warrant the label — or we’d be up to our ears in “Christmas movies” that contain fleeting Christmas scenes. That said, duration doesn’t seem to matter much either: Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) devotes only about a quarter of its running time to Christmas yet is an established seasonal favorite.

Is it a matter of genre? This is more debatable. For some purists, Christmas movies must center predominantly on the joy, love and nostalgia that define the season. But the season is actually “defined” by much more. It also amplifies loneliness, cynicism, and family dysfunction, for instance. As a result, there has long been room for all these themes and more to be explored across a wide swath of genres.

We accept Christmas-movie comedies (Home Alone, 1990), musicals (White Christmas) and romantic fantasies (The Bishop’s Wife, 1947), so why not also historical costume dramas (The Lion in Winter, 1968), or action-thrillers like Die Hard?

In fact, all of those titles are consistently lighter in tone than two of the most quintessential Christmas classics: It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) and A Christmas Carol (1951). Of course, both films end with sequences that are among the most joyful in all of cinema — the sequences we tend to remember the most.

But the most important element of what we would consider "Christmas movies" is the meaningful use of Christmas in their storytelling. In a full-fledged Christmas movie, some aspect of the season informs our experience of the story in a significant way. Since Christmas can instantly lend meaning to so many points on the emotional spectrum, a Christmas movie’s overall tone can be romantic or playful, poignant or satirical. Would Die Hard “work” if it were set on a night other than Christmas Eve? The story would work: John McClane could still fly to Los Angeles to reconcile with his wife, and terrorists could still take over a building to pull off a heist. But it would be a vastly different experience for the audience.

In the end, no matter how passionately anyone argues his or her case, the Die Hard debate is unlikely to die because Christmas movies are not a distinct “genre.” The label is subject to personal definition. If someone considers a Christmas film to be any picture with even a glimpse of the holiday, then that’s what it is, to them.

On the flip side, there’s yet another way to define “Christmas movie”: a film that we love to revisit with friends and family at Christmastime not for any holiday content but simply for its pure, escapist entertainment value — a Marx Brothers comedy, perhaps, or a Gene Kelly musical, or a James Bond film.

OK, well Arnold makes some solid points here, but I’m not necessarily comfortable with opening up the category to any movie that we love to rewatch with our family and friends.  So, by the authority vested in me by my proximity to the microphone, here are what I consider to be the three critical hallmarks of a Christmas movie.  

Are you ready?

LORENZO:  I’m on the edge of my seat.

1.  The story is clearly set during Christmas time.  It’s set in December, and there are physical representations of the season within the scenes, such as decorations, songs or carols, gifts, and so on.
2. Aspects of Christmas are integral to the story.  Themes such as love, sacrifice, redemption, hope, and faith are made more compelling because Christmas is the context.  Christmas is so integral to the story, in fact, that it is almost a character in and of itself.  You could not divorce Christmas from that context and retain the integrity of the story.

And…

1. It ends on a hopeful note.  A film doesn’t need to be overly sentimental to be a Christmas movie, but it does need to end on an up-lift.  Christmas is about hope, and hope is the anticipation of something greater than what we are currently experiencing–the coming of the baby Jesus, for example, or of better times.  If a movie that has all the outward appearances of a Christmas movie ends on a sad or depressing downbeat, that is the antithesis of Christmas, and therefore cannot be a Christmas movie.

LORENZO:  So, is Tomorrow is Forever a Christmas movie?

Hard no.  It does end on a hopeful note, Christmas isn’t even mentioned in the movie.  It could have taken place in July and it wouldn’t have changed anything.

LORENZO:  Well, now we know. Jennifer,may I change the subject.

Sure, Lorenzo, what’s on your mind?

LORENZO:  I have an idea for a new segment.

A new segment?  Great, let’s hear it.

LORENZO:  I have set up a wheel to help you pick your next movie to review.

Oh, that sounds cool.  How does it work?

LORENZO: I placed several movie titles on cards around the wheel.  If you spin the wheel, whatever title it stops on will be your next movie to review.

Oh, I like that idea.  Let’s see, what titles do you have on there? We’ve got:

• Dark Victory from 1939
• Gaslight from 1944
• A Letter to Three Wives from 1949
• Sunset Boulevard from 1950
• Psycho from 1960

Oh, yeah, these are all on my list.  OK, let’s do it.  So I just spin it like this…

LORENZO:  Yes

[spin sound]

OK, where did it land?

LORENZO:  Psycho

Psycho?  Well, that’s definitely a change of pace.  You heard it, ladies and gentlemen.  Next week we’re exploring the crazy world of a maniacal killer.  Sounds like fun.

Overlay VCIH Closing Theme to transition to close.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, can it be time to wrap up our show already?  

LORENZO:  The clock doesn’t lie.

No, it doesn’t.  Well, everyone, thank’s so much for listening.  If you liked what you heard here today–or if you at least were able to tolerate it–please join us again next week.  We’re still working out the kinks in our program, so hopefully it will get a little better as we go.  Have a great week, and when your week is done, come on back and see us again real soon.

Say goodbye, Lorenzo.

End with “Say goodbye, Lorenzo.” “Goodbye, Lorenzo.”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~