I’m honored to share that the wonderful Virginie of The Wonderful World of Cinema has nominated me for a Sunshine Blogger Award. A heartfelt thank-you to her for the kind spotlight and for a bit of sunshine!
For anyone new to the game, here’s how this works and say you can use it as an invitation to pass along some well-deserved appreciation and brighten someone else’s day!:
- Include the Sunshine Blogger Awards somewhere on your blog and/or in the article.
- Thank the person who nominated you.
- Share the link to this person’s blog.
- Answer the 11 questions asked by the blogger who nominated you.
- Nominate 11 bloggers yourself.
- Ask 11 questions to these bloggers.
- Notify the bloggers by commenting on their blogs.
As for passing the sunshine along, the classic-film corner of the internet is so wonderfully crowded with talent that, this time around, I simply don’t have eleven fresh bloggers left to tap without repeating names. I still had a terrific time answering these fabulous questions, though, and hope that it mostly fulfills the spirit of the award and, most importantly, shows how grateful I am to Virginie for sending this ray of sunshine my way.
Here goes:
1- You can only watch Cary Grant films or James Stewart films for the rest of your life. Which actor do you choose? Of course, The Philadelphia Story (George Cukor, 1940) applies in both cases!
Alright, so this is how I feel about that tough choice: Cary Grant is the epitome of cosmopolitan masculinity and charisma, isn’t he? That effortless charm, impeccable timing, and that cool, elegant vibe make him the ultimate Hollywood sophisticate. He could, with ease, blend wit with warmth and make even the most outlandish scenarios utterly delicious to watch.
But here’s the thing: if I had to choose between him and Jimmy Stewart from …here on out, I guess, I’d go with Stewart, because with him, every film feels like a warm, familiar conversation with a friend who’s seen it all and still has the twinkle of hope in his eyes. I mean, how could I resist the gentle sincerity he brings to It’s a Wonderful Life, where George Bailey’s every stumble and triumph is a heartfelt reminder of the beauty in ordinary lives. Or his razor-sharp wit and steely resolve in Anatomy of a Murder 1959, which turns courtroom drama into a dance of moral ambiguity and human frailty and contradictions.
Then, of course, there’s Rear Window 1954, where Stewart’s iconic blend of curiosity and vulnerability turns a simple act of peering out his window into a case of captivity-induced voyeurism. Whose boredom and journalistic inquisitiveness conspire to turn a wheelchair-bound stint into an obsessive deep dive into other people’s private lives, hoping to catch Raymond Burr for stuffing his missing wife into a suitcase, watching it unfold while his own life is on pause. This all becomes a masterclass in suspense.
And that unmistakable drawl, half-boyish charm, half-worldly wisdom, makes him utterly magnetic in Harvey 1950, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939, The Philadelphia Story 1940, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance 1962, the kind of performances that never feel scripted or rehearsed, but lived-in and deeply human.
I love watching Jimmy Stewart expertly balance tenacity with grace, humor with heart, immediacy with timelessness, and vulnerability with strength. Give me his steady gaze and honest soul any day.

2- You have to learn a choreography from a film for a talent show. Which choreography do you choose to learn?
Gene Kelly’s ballet-inspired fantasy with its dreamy romantic sequence in An American in Paris 1951! I get swept away by the ethereal, lyrical quality of the dance, and by the use of atmospheric fog effects that blur the boundaries between reality and illusion. The fog diffuses the colors and softens the lighting, enhancing the scene’s impressionistic, painterly quality as if Kelly and Caron are floating in a poetic reverie. It remains one of the most sensual sequences I’ve ever seen, and no matter how many times I see it, it never fails to stir something deep within me.
The scene just takes me somewhere else. Kelly and Caron, as Jerry and Lise, are wrapped in this hypnotic glow and mist that feels like it was pulled straight from the heart of Parisian legend. It sets a sensuous stage where Kelly, who moves with the most extraordinary fluidity, takes the lead with athletic jazz flourishes and hybrid ballet, weaving through Caron’s refined softness, her lines pure and otherworldly.
They glide and meet each other’s movements in a choreography that teases with erotic suggestion, the space between them painted with romantic longing and promise, marked by a tender elegance and emotional expressiveness.
Every gesture, from the sweep of their arms to the arch of their backs, spills over with poetic tension, as the vivid colors shift around them, with a rich palette of blues, liquid amber, and hot reds, heavily influenced by artists like Henri Matisse and Toulouse-Lautrec, that mirror the changing moods of their desires. And it all comes alive with George Gershwin’s extended orchestral adaptation of his An American in Paris, swelling through the air. It’s like watching two different energies come together and create pure magic.
3- Do you consider yourself to be some film’s number one fan? If yes, which film and why?
Rosemary’s Baby 1968. It’s not easy to find the words worthy of a film that feels absolutely flawless, and leaves me stunned each time I revisit it, which is often and never enough. It’s a film that slips through easy categories and shatters the bounds of expectations of what makes a classic film transcendent, inimitable, divinely wrought, and narrative alchemy. From the brilliant casting to the way it looks to its sharp humor, right down to Komeda’s evocative score, there’s not one thing out of place. It landed on the screen during a time when traditional hierarchies were being upended. Read a bit about my thoughts here:
MonsterGirl’s 150 Days of Classic Horror #122 Rosemary’s Baby 1968 & The Mephisto Waltz 1971

4- You are put in solitary confinement with the main character of the last film you watched. Who is it and how does it go?
My cinematic cellmate? I’m in solitary confinement with Jane Fonda’s Barbarella 1968, the cosmic adventurer of 1968, equal parts radiant and mischievous. In the tight confines, she graciously let me try on her intergalactic avant-garde wardrobe ( if I could have only ever filled it out like Fonda!), a dazzling parade of space-age couture designed by French costume designer Jacques Fonteray, with some costumes inspired by the fashion designer Paco Rabanne.
And between wardrobe changes, my imagination goes to her beautiful, blind, winged angel (John Phillip Law), taking turns flying me through the stars, defying the four grey walls.
Our conversations dance between the campy and the far out. Barbarella’s fearless embrace of chaos and sensuality, side by side with some of the existential jams she gets in surrounding love, freedom, and survival in a universe that’s as playful as it is perilous.
With her, solitary feels less like a punishment and more like a stylish trip down the madcap corridors of sci-fi fantasy and liberated spirit. It’s a far cry from bleak confinement, I find myself slipping into cosmic flights and fashionable whimsy, turning the whole adventure into a stylish, psychedelic odyssey.

5- You have the power to go back in time and release in colour a film that is currently in black and white. (For example, you decide that The Shop Around the Corner should be in colour). Which film do you choose?
If I had the power to roll back the years and slap a vibrant coat of color onto a classic black-and-white film, I’d pick The Haunting (1963). Just imagine those eerie rooms bathed not just in shadow and whisper but in rich, haunting hues. The walls, draped in textures and saturated with color, might take on new layers of menace while Eleanor and Theo’s outfits, with their 60s colors against the dark corners, could add unexpected contrasts to their fragile, haunted selves.
In The Haunting, the wardrobe choices could reflect this mix but lean more toward sophisticated, understated palettes rather than loud psychedelia. Theo (Claire Bloom) famously wore clothes designed by Mary Quant, a key figure in 60s fashion known for her mod styles. Theo’s wardrobe features sleek lines yet tasteful colors, while seemingly an all black ensemble, I’d guess some would be in classic deep green tones that signify her confident, free-spirited character. Eleanor (Julie Harris), as she herself notes, wears tweed, a fabric traditionally associated with a more sensible, conservative, buttoned-up style, typically in blue, reflecting her cautious, introverted nature.
Theo’s velvet textures add richness and yet austere softness to her cosmopolitan look, contrasting Eleanor’s more structured tweeds. This interplay between green and blue aligns with the novel’s color symbolism for the characters and complements the film’s Gothic, claustrophobic atmosphere.
In Shirley Jackson’s original novel The Haunting of Hill House, the bedrooms in Hill House are thematically color-coded: blue, green, pink, and yellow rooms are directly mentioned as themes or identifiers for each of the guests who occupy them. In Wise’s film, however, there’s a mention of the “Purple Parlor” in some screenplay transcripts. It would be an intriguing twist to imagine The Haunting (1963) awash in color, where every intricately patterned wallpaper might burst with eerie vibrancy, and Elliot Scott’s masterful Gothic interiors would unfold like a darkly ornate dream. His Rococo-inspired sets, bathed in bright, almost otherworldly light, might reveal their unsettling beauty, and those soaring, off-kilter, and unconventional ceilings just might torment the eye unleashed in a riot of colors. In color, these haunting spaces have a spectral richness, just for curiosity’s sake, transforming the film’s chilling silence into a vivid chromatic presence.
But, and here’s the catch, the film’s true genius lies precisely in Wise’s deliberate greyscale vision and monochrome mastery. Robert Wise’s cinematic brushstroke is all about shadowplay, where darkness isn’t just absence but a living, breathing presence. An atmospheric sensibility he undoubtedly nurtured amidst Lewton’s poetic shadows at RKO. The chiaroscuro, the ghostly high-contrast lighting, the way gloom seeps into every line and crack, that’s where The Haunting coils around your spine like one of the house’s cold spots. Color might tease our curiosity or offer a fleeting novelty, but the black-and-white is the soul of that spectral dance.
So yes, I’d crack open the color palette for a tantalizing glimpse of what might be, but then quickly retreat back to the moody silvers and onyx, the perfect ghostly noir for the haunted mind. This choice is a wink to the magic of black-and-white filmmaking and the seductive “what if?”


6- Which film do you think actually deserves a sequel?
For a film that truly deserves a sequel, despite my general skepticism about remakes and sequels, I’d cast my lot with Rosemary’s Baby (1968), especially with a bold, fresh twist on the journey of Adrian, the shadowed seed sown without her knowing.
The unbidden heir of a violated womb, of darkest design, the whispered legacy not born of love now grown and stepping into a complicated adulthood. Polanski’s masterful cocktail left endless threads hanging; questions of motherhood, autonomy, and evil lurking beneath middle-class facades brimming with paranoia. The sequel could explore how the loosening of cultural constraints from the 60s blooms in a modern world of moral ambiguity, blending the claustrophobic aesthetic and lush subconscious unease of the first film with the harsh, unforgiving realities of a new day.
The first film, brilliant and arresting, was really the story of a woman’s power snatched away, motherhood weaponized against Rosemary by the insidious cult. But imagine now: a sequel where Rosemary, having reclaimed her maternal strength, raises Adrian not as a victim of darkness, but as a force of her own, forging a reckoning of motherhood that defies evil’s script.
This new chapter wouldn’t dwell on the Cold War anxiety, social unease, and paranoia of the 60s so much as explore the messy, complex consequences of power, how a child born in shadow grapples with identity, legacy, and the possibility of choice. Rosemary, no longer the fragile pawn, is a phoenix rising, wielding her fierce protective love as armor.
And as for Guy? He’s now a Hollywood actor, chasing fame and haunted by the dark drama of his old life, a perfect, cheeky nod that life moves on, even if demons don’t.
This sequel could be a sharp, modern meditation on motherhood reclaiming its power, the legacy of evil rewritten through love and strength, all wrapped in that deliciously eerie, playful malice that Polanski and company perfected.
I would hope that such a continuation would respect the original’s brooding philosophical themes while indulging a grimly poetic vision reborn through urban modernity. It would be a rare sequel that doesn’t just cash in but deepens the mythos. And promises a story about resilience, something Mia Farrow knows all too well, of feminine power, and the art of rewriting fate. If it were possible, wouldn’t you want to sit at the table with an older but still thriving, mischievous matriarch, Ruth Gordon, once again, sipping plain old Lipton tea and watching how the whole saga plays out?

7- How do you spend your ideal movie night?
At home, basking in the glow of our glorious 55-inch 4K high-definition television, armed with great snacks and maybe even surrounded by kindred spirits who don’t just watch films and shows, they interrogate every frame. Pausing or rewinding sometimes several times, turning a simple movie night into a cozy, unofficial film school. It makes for the best kind of viewing.

8- A film character is invited as a guest writer on your blog. Who is this character, and what would he or she be writing about? Yes, I was a bit inspired by one of Sally’s questions for that one!
If I invited Gloria Grahame’s Laurel Gray from In a Lonely Place 1950 as a guest writer on my blog, I imagine she’d likely offer her deeply introspective and revealing thoughts on her turbulent relationship with Dix Steele (Bogart). I picture her voice blending vulnerability with sharp insight into the emotional stakes of their romance, overshadowed by Dix’s volatile temper, paranoia, the fragility of trust, the shadow of past trauma, and his obsessive nature.
She would likely write about the fragile line between love and fear she walked and how Dix’s intense mood swings made her both drawn to and wary of him, and how she struggled with his darker impulses. I imagine Laurel delving into her inner turmoil over whether she believed Dix was truly capable of murder, reflecting the torment of loving a man suspected of a terrible crime, yet wanting to trust and defend him until the truth uncovered the real killer.
Her essay would capture the haunting psychological complexity of noir relationships, how fear, suspicion, alienation, and turbulent passion can collide, and I think she might close off the post with a poignant meditation on the tragedy of misunderstanding and how love can be crushed beneath the weight of doubt and desperation.
I’d love to hear her perspective, which would marry her character’s emotional depth with a nuanced exploration of those classic noir themes!

9- Film noir debate time. Who had the best hair: Rita Hayworth or Veronica Lake?
Rita Hayworth’s hair was nothing short of cinematic poetry. Hayworth was not always cast as a redhead. Early in her career, she often appeared with dark brown hair, which was her natural color. Hayworth’s character, Doña Sol, in Blood and Sand (1941), is portrayed as a seductive and fiery woman. The shift to red hair, famously showcased in Blood and Sand , marked a deliberate transformation orchestrated by the studios to create a more striking and glamorous screen image that set her apart. Now with a tumbling flame that burned against the monochrome screens of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Her signature fiery red mane wasn’t just a color choice; it was an emblem of her screen persona. Honestly, her glorious hair seemed to tell its own story, capturing the longing and mystique of her roles.
In films like Gilda (1946), her hair seemed to move with a life of its own, every swing and carefree shake an unspoken language of desire and rebellion. The rich depth and texture of her glorious head of hair contrast beautifully with the shadows and highlights of the black-and-white cinematography, making even the smallest gestures of hers feel like pure visual lyricism and hypnotic sensuality.

10- You are travelling abroad on your birthday, but get the chance to celebrate with three movie directors of your choosing. Who do you choose, and what gifts do you think you would receive from them?
Knowing Roger Corman, he’d probably show up with one of those hauntingly twisted paintings from House of Usher (1960), the disturbing ones Burt Shonberg painted with his surreal, expressionistic, unnerving flair. Or maybe another prop that would tickle me from one of his collaborations with Vincent Price would be that little mandolin Price plays in House of Usher. Nothing else says, here’s a creepy classic token so you can pluck a chord that calls forth a restless spirit!

Then Curtis Harrington could bring me the tarot cards Simone Signoret used in Games 1967. Signoret wielded her tarot cards in Games like a sorceress commanding fate. Each delicate flick of her wrist was like a whispered prophecy, or perhaps part of her subtle subterfuge, each shuffle a dance with destiny. It wasn’t a mere prop; it was part of the air of mystery and menace that Simone Signoret brought with her into Paul and Jennifer Montgomery’s (James Caan and Katherine Ross) lives. I would love to get my hands on that deck!

Finally, James Whale might bring me one of Kenneth Strickfaden’s set pieces for my film room. He was a master of the electrical secrets of heaven; his special effects and set design created the iconic, eccentric machines that sparked generations of filmmaking and gave Dr. Frankenstein’s lab its unforgettable, electrifying atmosphere. His imaginative use of junkyard electrical parts, Tesla coils, and high-voltage apparatus not only shaped the look of the lab but also established the classic “mad scientist” aesthetic.

11- Finally, is there a certain meal or food from a film you would like to taste?
The meal at the heart of Gabriel Axel’s Babette’s Feast (1987) is a symphony of sensual artistry, a seven-course sumptuous French banquet that completely transforms a humble Danish village gathering into a stage for culinary transcendence. Babette, once a chef at the famed Café Anglais of Paris, conjures a meal infused with grace, serving up an exquisite, almost sacred act of artistic creation and generosity, transforming and delighting the initially austere, puritanical guests with rich, luxurious flavors that become a profound and almost mystical experience, a kind of secular sacrament.
Each dish feels like a carefully crafted work of art, made with so much love and attention that its flavors gently unsettle and uplift the guests, turning what might have been just a simple meal into something much deeper, almost like a shared moment of renewal and connection blending elegance and sensual pleasure that uplifts and unifies the community, a quiet revolution conveyed through the language of gastronomy.
The menu: As each dish arrives—Potage à la Tortue, the turtle soup billowing (I’ll push that one to the side), glimmering with hidden depths, poured steaming and rich, accompanied by mellow Amontillado sherry. It’s smoke and sea mingling in the bowl. She offers up the food of my people, Ukrainian Blinis Demidoff, delicate buckwheat pancakes bearing glossy caviar and cool sour cream, crowned with a cascade of Veuve Clicquot Champagne bubbles, a dish both opulent and playful. Quails enrobed in pastry, cushioned by foie gras and perfumed with truffle sauce, golden and sumptuous, enveloped in flaky pastry and draped in Clos de Vougeot Pinot Noir. This is the meal’s grand opera; its most decadent aria.
Endive salad, subtle and bitter, is a palate-refreshing whisper after the extravagance. Savarin au Rhum avec des Figues et Fruit Glacée (rum-soaked sponge cake, figs, and candied cherries), a sweet, boozy epiphany, served with an effervescent toast of Champagne. Assorted cheeses and fruits, Sauternes in the glass, cheeses; washed-rind and blue-veined marvels, grapes and figs glistening in the candlelight, each bite a promise of faraway sun. And lastly, Coffee with vieux marc Grande Champagne cognac, a bold, spirited finale, smoke rising, laughter softening, leaving everyone’s hearts and eyes opening to rare grace. I can’t help but feel a kind of quiet awe for this feast, not just for the eyes, but there’s a hungry song rising up in my belly!
Babette’s meal turns into something much more than just food: old grudges start to fade, sorrows ease up, and you can see happiness flicker on faces that usually seem weighed down by strictness. What she’s doing feels almost like a connection between body and soul, where every bite brings back memories, every scent tempts you, and every plate feels like a small prayer for rediscovering beauty.



There’s a particular thrill in stepping into the cinematic corridors of 

































