MareyMac

Members
  • Content count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MareyMac

  1. Does anyone remember the Simpson's episode based on Rear Window?
  2. I was going to add my thoughts on this but you've pretty much touched on all the points I was going to make. Considering the amount of material to be covered and all the juggling that I'm sure the Prof had to do, kudos on a brilliantly executed course. A few lecture notes were posted a bit late and I think everyone took it in stride.
  3. I'd sign up for a Pre-Code course in a heartbeat. Lots of late 20s/early 30s"social context" a prof could cover. It has to tie into a month long festival that TCM would run and I think that would be do-able summer festival on their end. I believe they've done some Pre-code evenings in the past?
  4. Third Man

    My office mate casually informed me that her first apartment was in Vienna, across the street from the Third Man ferris wheel, the Prater. https://vimeo.com/76843899 She gave me this pic of the view from her living room window. I mean seriously, how cool is that?
  5. Third Man

    Sorry, here is her picture!
  6. Found a website that has stills of all Hitchcock's cameos. He certainly has a thing about musical intruments. https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/The_Hitchcock_Cameos
  7. Loved the Noir course. There was a lot more required reading, so more demanding time wise, but then a broader subject. And LOTS more films. I kept my course binder and have loaned it out to few people. I had to laugh when my bro said he found it 'pedantic'.
  8. I'd also be interested in reading some of Hitchcock's original stories. "While working at Henley's, Hitchcock began to dabble in creative writing. The company's in-house publication The Henley Telegraph was founded in 1919, and he often submitted short articles, eventually becoming one of its most prolific contributors. His first piece, 'Gas' (1919), published in the first issue, tells of a young woman who imagines that she is being assaulted one night in London—only for the twist to reveal that it was all just a hallucination in the dentist's chair induced by the anesthetic. Hitchcock's second piece was 'The Woman's Part' (1919), which involves the conflicted emotions that a husband feels as he watches his actress wife perform onstage. 'Sordid' (1920) surrounds an attempt to buy a sword from an antiques dealer, with another twist ending. The short story 'And There Was No Rainbow' (1920) is Hitchcock's first brush with possibly censurable material. A young man goes out looking for a brothel, only to stumble into the house of his best friend's girl. 'What's Who?' (1920) at first glance seems to be a precursor to Abbott and Costello's 'Who's on First?' routine, as it is a short dialogue piece resembling antic dialogue from a music hall skit. It captures the confusion that occurs when a group of actors decide to put together a sketch in which they will impersonate themselves. In the story’s forty sentences, confusion regarding the questions 'Who’s me?' and 'Who’s you?' rise to comic emotional heights. 'The History of Pea Eating' (1920) is a satirical disquisition on the various attempts that people have made over the centuries to eat peas successfully. His final piece, 'Fedora' (1921), is his shortest and most enigmatic contribution. It also gives a strikingly accurate description of his future wife Alma Reville, whom he had not yet met."
  9. "Stangers" is a great example of Hitchcock throwing out most of the original story and just keeping what he liked. Plot synopsis from Wikipedia: Guy is consumed by guilt, whereas Bruno seeks Guy's company as if nothing had happened. He makes an uninvited appearance at Guy's wedding, causing a scene. At the same time, a private detective, who suspects Bruno of having arranged the murder of his father, establishes the connection between Bruno and Guy that began with the train ride, and suspects Bruno of Miriam's murder. Guy also becomes implicated due to his contradictions about the acquaintance with Bruno. When Bruno falls overboard during a sailing cruise, Guy identifies so strongly with Bruno that he tries to rescue him under threat to his own life. Nevertheless, Bruno drowns, and the murder investigation is closed. Guy, however, is plagued by guilt, and confesses the double murder to Miriam's former lover. This man, however, does not condemn Guy; rather, he considers the killings as appropriate punishment for the unfaithfulness. The detective who had been investigating the murders overhears Guy's confession, however, and confronts him. Guy turns himself over to the detective immediately.
  10. I read Patrica Highsmith's "Strangers on a Train" and it veered off quite differently from the movie... Guy eventually DID kill Bruno's father.
  11. Dr. Edwards also referred to James Stewart's character in Rear Window as "Scottie". Oh well.
  12. Hitchcock Books

    I have a hardcover of "Hitchcock at Work", fully illustrated with film stills, shots taken on set, storyboards and annotated film scripts
  13. I didn't realize Ivor Novello was in a 1932 talkie remake of The Lodger called The Phantom Fiend. I started watching it on YouTube. He's a creepy musician with a weird foreign accent and comes off a bit like Lugosi. Has anyone watched it? Wondering if it's worth my time. I've seen the 1944 remake with Laird Cregar that I quite enjoyed.
  14. The opening of The Pleasure Garden immediately brought to mind the audience in the Yoshiwara nightclub scene from Metropolis.
  15. Smoking in Noir

    Hollow Triumph was hilarious for smoking. Paul Henreid was even lighting one cigarette off another at one point - basically chain smoking. Peter Lorre was no slouch in Mask of Dimitrios either.
  16. Smoking in Noir

    I noticed that Mike Hammer (Ralph Meeker) doesn't light up at all KIss Me Deadly. That's very unusal for a noir film made at that time. I wonder if there's a back story?
  17. There a Film Noir Festival in my neck of the woods! (Vancouver) running August - September. Just wondering if there are any local fans out there. Here's your chance to see a lot of the flicks on the big screen @ Pacific Cinematheque. "The feverish, fatalistic world of Film Noir returns to The Cinematheque for another moody, menacing, angst-filled August. Celebrating one of the American cinema’s richest and most creative periods in all its stylish, seductive, and cynical glories, this year’s Noir season features 12 hard-boiled classics from noir’s 1940s/1950s heyday plus two small sidebars spotlighting noir’s surprisingly wide reach and lurid legacy." Full schedule here... http://www.thecinema.../film-noir-2015
  18. There a Film Noir Festival in my neck of the woods! (Vancouver) running August - September. Just wondering if there are any local fans out there. Here's your chance to see a lot of the flicks on the big screen @ Pacific Cinematheque. "The feverish, fatalistic world of Film Noir returns to The Cinematheque for another moody, menacing, angst-filled August. Celebrating one of the American cinema’s richest and most creative periods in all its stylish, seductive, and cynical glories, this year’s Noir season features 12 hard-boiled classics from noir’s 1940s/1950s heyday plus two small sidebars spotlighting noir’s surprisingly wide reach and lurid legacy." Full schedule here... http://www.thecinematheque.ca/film-noir-2015
  19. Not that constraits are necessary for genius, but a true genius will just become more creative to deal with barriers. There are too many specifics on what roadblocks Hitchcock had thrown in his path. Off the top of my head, how about the shower scene in Psycho? It would never have gotten past the censors in colour, and no nudity could be shown. In working around those constrains, Hitchcock come up with a more terrifying scene because of what was implied, rather than being graphic. As general examples, the constraints of censorship (Production Code) in the 40s; or lack of budgets as covered in the whole topic of B movies resulted in some pretty inovative efforts (Gun Crazy or Detour).
  20. I didn’t mean to slam Orson Welles at all. I have a lot of respect for his efforts and I admire his work in films like Touch of Evil. He had genius for innovation and a strong vision for what he wanted - his work in radio and theatre were particularly groundbreaking. And he had a real presence as an actor. Again, as far as Touch of Evil, he did not write an original story. It was based on a novel – Badge of Evil. My point was that I don’t think he was god-like as far as being this genius director-write-producer who was always betrayed by the money men and studios, butchering his masterpieces. I’m guess it’s because I’m old enough to remember him in interviews, always harping on that… what might have been. It’s funny a lot of the jobs he took as either an actor or director for hire (or both) are what he’s best remembered for now. Jobs he took to finance his own film projects, that overall never really panned out.
  21. That’s a perfectly valid opinion and there are many people who, although giving credit to Welles for flashes of genius, feel he was not quite the director-God he’s been made out to be. I share that opinion for a number of reasons: Welles had a massive ego as was known to throw blame onto others for his failures and try to take complete credit for successes. Case in point, he tried to ‘buy’ Herman Mankiewicz’s writing credit from him – so that Welles would have sole credit for the Citizen Kane screenplay. At the genius of Citizen Kane is the script. And there is a lot of evidence that Mankiewicz wrote the guts of it. Welles never again wrote an original screenplay to match Citizen Kane. Mainly, he tried adapting other works. I think Welles rode on the coattails of a lot of talented people who made Kane into the amazing picture it is. If you look at all his other attempts, they just don’t come together. Magnificant Ambersons was based on a creaky old novel that would never have been successful, regardless of being left unedited. It was a dreary, boring story. Welles’ excuse was always that Citizen Kane was the last picture he had complete control over. Well, he had a lot of control in Lady from Shanghai and that movie is a mess. A true genius works within the constraints put on his work. Alfred Hitchcock had nothing but roadblocks to deal with, working for David Selznick, and he consistently delivered masterpieces. That’s a genius. I’m sure I’m going to get a lot of flack…
  22. Watching Detour again I was reminded of how the ending had to be changed to comply with the Production Code. Poor old Al was going to wander the highways, living with his bad choices. But a crime could not go unpunished. But isn't that essentially the same ending as Scarlet Street? Made the same year, in 1945? Chris Cross even tried to hang himself, but was doomed to live with his guilt, wandering the streets aimlessly. How did the production code pass that ending? UPDATE: Well... I just found the answer to my own question. Apparently Fritz Lang pleaded the case to the Breen Office. Interesting. https://nitratediva.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/fritz-lang-scarlet-street-1945/ Determined to avoid such a botched ending, Lang decided to bring his case to censorship honcho Joseph Breen and harp on a feeling close to every Catholic’s heart: guilt. As the director recalled: “I said, ‘Look, we’re both Catholics. Being permitted to live, the Robinson character in Scarlet Street goes through hell. That’s a much greater punishment being imprisoned for homicide. After all, it was not a premeditated murder, it was a crime of passion. What if he does spend the rest of his life in jail—so what? The greater punishment is surely to have him go legally free, his soul burdened by the knowledge of his deed, his mind constantly echoing with the words of the woman he loved proclaiming her love for the man he’d wrongly sent to death in his place…’ And I won my point.”
  23. I remember a scene from a war movie and cannot remember any other part of it. It's a black and white movie set during WWII so it's possibly from the 50s or 60s. A group of GIs is in some bombed out European city (Germany?). One of the soliders befriends a small white dog, or puppy. They are put in the back of an army truck and the soldier tries to take the dog with him but is told to leave it behind. The dog chases after the truck as it pulls away, running faster and faster as the truck picks up speed. He's told the best thing to do is shoot the dog as it will only starve to death on it own. He's overcome with emotion and says he can't do it, finally he (or someone else?) aims a rifle and kills the dog.
  24. war movie with stray puppy

    I have no memory of any of the other scenes but the one the puppy really stuck with me. Now I want to watch it, but this seems to be a hard to find film. There appears there's no N.American DVD release from Columbia but it is in the TCM library. I'll have to put in a request for it.

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us