Oh Jeez...

I was born and raised and still live in Los Angeles. However, I’m also a pretty major anglophile and I really really really want to use Brit words/slang in my everyday life. The thing is, I know I’m going to sound so dumb if I do, because not only is American English so bland, but LA English specifically does not have an accent. There’s no southern drawl, and we don’t add character by dropping the “r” in words like car or yard. Here are the things I’d love to say on the daily:

• Rubbish
• Gutted
• Bollocks
• Bloody
• Bastard
• Duffer
• Dustbin
• Gobsmacked
• Brilliant
• Cheeky
• Naughty bits
• Fanny around
• Fancy (as in, I fancy you)
• Jumper (instead of sweater)
• Nail varnish (instead of polish)
• Presenter (instead of host)
• Hen doo (instead of bachelorette party)
• Pudding (instead of dessert) 
• Pub (instead of bar)

That the 1965 version of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella is THE BEST EVER. The 1997 version with Brandy doesn’t even come close (although I do love me some Bernadette Peters) and while the 1957 version with the wonderful and amazing Julie Andrews is a classic, nothing holds a candle to Lesley Ann Warren and Stuart Damon as Cinderella and the Prince, respectively.

Aside from the gorgeous music which is featured in all three films, allow me to list what sets the 1965 version apart.

1) Lesley Ann Warren as Cinderella - She’s so mousey and endearing and has this sort of swan-like elegance about her. All good things if you are playing a soot-covered-maid-turned-princess I say.

2) Stuart Damon as the Prince - Okay, so the man’s not a household name, but he sure was dreamy and could sing and has had a pretty active career (in soap operas) since. Besides, I could never believe 1997’s Paolo Montalban as the Prince. Paolo gave it his all, but it just didn’t work for me. Maybe it was because Victor Garber and Whoopi Goldberg were cast as his parents? Maybe becuase the casting in general for this version was a grab-bag of B/C list celebrities with marginal vocal talents (again, Bernadette is the exception).

3) The costumes - Yes, the costumes were lovely and the ballgowns and headpieces were exquisite, but the real triumph in this regard are the multitude of colorful stockings the Prince encounters with glass slipper in hand, searching for Cinderella. Who knew that 17th century synthetic fiber weaving technology was so sophisticated and vibrant?!

4) The sets - Ah yes, those wonderful cardboard-based sets. I’m pretty sure you can go to any high school drama department and find exact replicas of the sets used in the 1965 version anytime they put on a production of Romeo and Juliet or South Pacific, or anything really.

5) The wicked stepmother and stepsisters - Never in the history of cinema have there been better casting decisions (tell me you remember the over-the-hill-three-pack-a-day-raspy-voiced stepsister Prunella). I mean, just LOOK: