hlywdkjk

The Annual FrankGrimes Torture Thread

12,976 posts in this topic

*What did you like about The Last Time I Saw Paris and Elizabeth's character? You didn't seem wild about her "Leslie" in Giant which I consider very similar to "Helen" (except Helen was more of a free spirit given her father's style and being in Paris, etc. both were very spirited and willful, though).*

 

I like Leslie. I think she's wonderful, actually. I liked her relationship with "Bick" a great deal.

 

What I liked about "Helen" is that she was truly committed to Charles (Van Johnson). She was a sacrificial woman. And this after first seeing her as more of an ambitious floozy out for self gain. She proved to be nothing like this. Not at all. It was a fairly mature role for Liz, especially at that stage of her career.

 

*I think "Helen" may be the first to show Elizabeth's unconventional side.*

 

I can believe that. I was used to seeing Liz being more difficult or just simply "pretty". She has depth in *The Last Time I Saw Paris*.

 

*The bit with the fountain was supposedly based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's own wife's escapade in the fountain in front of the Plaza Hotel in NYC.*

 

:) I actually read at IMDb about this film being semi-autobiographical for Fitzgerald. I would have never known that.

 

*If you recollect, in Marnie, Rod Taylor keeps reminding her of her own incident in Rome in a fountain.*

 

You mean *The Birds*, Miss Daniels. :) And what a wonderful connection you have made! That's great! I can see you causing havoc in a fountain. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>I like Leslie. I think she's wonderful, actually. I liked her relationship with "Bick" a great deal.

 

Oh, I wasn't sure if you did.

 

>>What I liked about "Helen" is that she was truly committed to Charles (Van Johnson). She was a sacrificial woman. And this after first seeing her as more of an ambitious floozy out for self gain. She proved to be nothing like this. Not at all. It was a fairly mature role for Liz, especially at that stage of her career.

 

Helen never did anything half hearted. When she partied she was crazy and reckless but when she loved it was all the way.

 

That was some role for Donna, right?

 

>>I can believe that. I was used to seeing Liz being more difficult or just simply "pretty". She has depth in The Last Time I Saw Paris.

 

Everyone actually gets a moment or two when they show unsuspected depth --- except maybe Roger Moore. I think my favorite line is Eva Gabor's.

 

So you look things up on Imdb after every movie?

 

You mean The Birds, Miss Daniels. And what a wonderful connection you have made! That's great! I can see you causing havoc in a fountain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Helen never did anything half hearted. When she partied she was crazy and reckless but when she loved it was all the way.*

 

Excellent point! I didn't even think of her that way, but you are right.

 

*That was some role for Donna, right?*

 

I'll say! I have never seen her like that before.

 

*Everyone actually gets a moment or two when they show unsuspected depth --- except maybe Roger Moore. I think my favorite line is Eva Gabor's.*

 

Ahhhh, Roger. And what was Eva's line?

 

*So you look things up on Imdb after every movie?*

 

Most of the time. But I don't delve into the comment section. I usually just catch what's on the film's front page or message board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hellooo, Mz. Peacemaker! :)

 

TRUE!! ha. He was at least an admitted low-life. ha. He really had very few illusions about who he was and what he was doing. That is what (to me) makes him really just so detestable. He was completely aware of his own (and her) bad influence on the girls.. but he just didn't care. It was all about what HE wanted for his own pleasure. (no matter the wife and kids at home, or the fact he was involving himself in the lives of these young ladies in wholly innapropriate ways. Ugh)

 

He was a definite snake. If he'd confined his philandering to the teachers it wouldn't have made him seem so sleazy, but students the same age as his own kids is out of line.

 

*Maybe.. but I have also known people who will still (even that sort of little fish, big shark tank setting) just scream to be noticed. They go out of their way to stand out and be different in any way that will get them the most attention. (I call it the "Hey Look At ME syndrome' ha.)*

 

*She likely would have had to try harder., but I bet she would have still found a way to surround herself with weaker, or lesser people who might not "stand-out" much so that she herself would stand out more. It's a vicious cycle.. but no matter the "pool size" people like Jean will usually seek out those who are weaker and more easily impressed.. just so they can impress them.*

 

That's all true, and it makes her choice of profession ideal.

 

In London, I think her ego would drive her to try to seek the highest "level" but when she found out how viciously outclassed she was, it would have probably given her quite a blow.

 

 

Ha.. don't ask me why, (because these two movies do NOT have any sort of common theme) but this makes me think of Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter and how he would break into his sermon with his tattooed fingers. Most of the folks he would tell that story to were not as strong (either mentally or spiritually) as they needed to be in order to not be fooled by him.. but Miss Cooper didn't buy it for a second.

 

Now I never would have thought of that comparison but it's pretty sharp!

 

The ones who need someone to believe in will often find plenty of wolves in sheep's clothing to accommodate them!

 

I guess what I am saying is.. people who seek to hide themselves behind a persona are only successful so long as their "audience" is willing to either buy into.. or be bowled over by the image that is being presented. But there are always those.. like Rachel.. and Miss MacKay who can see the "real" behind the fa?ade from a million miles away. (And then there are those like Sandy.. who maybe can see it.. but will play along so long as it is to their own advantage)

 

Miss Brodie really should have been an actress...on the stage. Then her behavior would have been not only tolerated but expected...and she'd have gotten paid for it. But being an actress in real life can cost you.

 

I know I've sounded harsh about her, but in fact I understand her perfectly as I've almost always been the perfect 'actress' in my own life. The difference is I don't care about influencing others to think like me. I do tend to chase rainbows like Jean, to exalt art because I can identify with people in it more than with people in real life, and like Blanche, I prefer a Chinese Lantern to a bare bulb. :)

 

 

I am sure you are right. I have to be honest and say that Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is actually the only one of his stories I can ever recall seeing all the way through.. and as you may recall, after all our back and forth gab session (and back and forth some more, ha) I actually ended up discovering that I really DID like that movie.. even if I've always hated it.. ha. :D So I am sure it is likely just all my Tennessee William misconceptions working against me. ha.

 

There are many odious characteristics to be found in the people in his plays, he's almost always tearing away careful facades. But underneath he usually shows a very vulnerable human being hiding, not a monster. Violet and Sebastian in *Suddenly, Last Summer* are two exceptions. You could almost say they are "villains". The represent the users in life.

 

I don't think I have seen any of his other works (at least not completely) I know I have seen portions of The Glass Menagerie, but wow, it's been SO looooonnnnnnggg ago, I don't remember much at all.

 

*Glass Menagerie* has to be among his most depressing. That one about shattered me as a teenager.

 

I think I am most interested in checking out the Elizabeth Taylor/Katherine Hepburn one that you all chatted about a good long while ago.. (can't remember the name right now and am too lazy to go look it up, ha) But I just never have been interested enough to really seek it out.

 

Well, I do think you'd find a lot of things to "love to hate", ha!

 

And again.. I confess this is likely due to my pre-conceived ideas that all the folks do in his stories are rip each other apart verbally, ha. (So maybe I should give more of his stories a try before I write him off so harshly. :)

 

There are lots of confrontations, long speeches, yes. But they do get at the heart of many things people work terribly hard to avoid confronting, including nice things like the need for love, beauty and to matter somehow.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Mar 12, 2014 9:05 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*I'll say! I have never seen her like that before.*

 

Or since. Her poor husband!

 

Everyone actually gets a moment or two when they show unsuspected depth --- except maybe Roger Moore. I think my favorite line is Eva Gabor's.

 

Ahhhh, Roger. And what was Eva's line?

 

Van: "No children?"

 

Eva: "No. And that is my one contribution to humanity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Or since. Her poor husband!*

 

I know! It's amazing how truthful he is about everything, including to himself.

 

*Van: "No children?"*

 

*Eva: "No. And that is my one contribution to humanity."*

 

That's hilarious! I don't even remember that line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know! It's amazing how truthful he is about everything, including to himself.

 

To the point of his own humiliation. He was so humble about it all.

 

That's hilarious! I don't even remember that line!

 

If you care to, rewind to that scene in the bar when Van "interviews" her.

 

The line is in fact, an admission of the most astonishing self-honesty and not meant to be funny at all. It's extremely rare that a woman who would only be seen as a "type" should acknowledge that she could have done no greater harm in her life than to have dragged an innocent child into it. Many women are too selfish no matter how bad they behave, sure that they've given the world a gift from God by having a child.

 

Moments like that are when a slim shaft of Fitzgerald's light on human nature manages to shine through the Hollywood gloss. He depicted "butterflies" in his tales, but also their unexpected humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*To the point of his own humiliation. He was so humble about it all.*

 

You are exactly right. It really was humiliating for him to admit to his wife that he knew he was second best with her.

 

*If you care to, rewind to that scene in the bar when Van "interviews" her.*

 

*The line is in fact, an admission of the most astonishing self-honesty and not meant to be funny at all. It's extremely rare that a woman who would only be seen as a "type" should acknowledge that she could have done no greater harm in her life than to have dragged an innocent child into it. Many women are too selfish no matter how bad they behave, sure that they've given the world a gift from God by having a child.*

 

Oh, now I see. It's a deep truth but one that is wrapped with some sadness. I always think a woman who says that is dealing with their feelings of emptiness of being without a child. She may be right in her words but her feelings are much different.

 

*Moments like that are when a slim shaft of Fitzgerald's light on human nature manages to shine through the Hollywood gloss. He depicted "butterflies" in his tales, but also their unexpected humanity.*

 

Butterflies! I love that. It does say a great deal about a writer when they show they care about characters such as those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Oh, now I see. It's a deep truth but one that is wrapped with some sadness. I always think a woman who says that is dealing with their feelings of emptiness of being without a child. She may be right in her words but her feelings are much different.*

 

Yes, there is that, too. She knows what she has missed, but she's able to admit she does not live a fit life to be a mother. That kind of honesty is almost non-existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there, young'un,

 

In London, I think her ego would drive her to try to seek the highest "level" but when she found out how viciously outclassed she was, it would have probably given her quite a blow

 

I imagine you are right about that.. ha. It would be hard for her to stay at a "low level". But even if she did suffer that blow.. I do think she would put on a show.. even while she went down in flames. ha She just doesn't have it in her to not be the center of attention and take a lower profile place in life.

 

Now I never would have thought of that comparison but it's pretty sharp

 

Ha.. well thanks for saying that but to be honest I worried if I stretched my example TOO far. Because I know Miss Brodie and Harry are nothing alike in MOST of the ways that you could compare them.. ha. But I guess I was just thinking about how they both liked to "put on a show" and reel people in, even if their methods (and motives) were completely different.

 

Miss Brodie really should have been an actress...on the stage. Then her behavior would have been not only tolerated but expected...and she'd have gotten paid for it. But being an actress in real life can cost you

 

She would have made a fabulous actress.. she really knew how to captivate an audience and spin a good yarn. But it was her motives that got in the way. And yes.. it did cost her, eventually. But oh me.. she did a lot of damage along the way.

 

I know I've sounded harsh about her, but in fact I understand her perfectly as I've almost always been the perfect 'actress' in my own life. The difference is I don't care about influencing others to think like me. I do tend to chase rainbows like Jean, to exalt art because I can identify with people in it more than with people in real life, and like Blanche, I prefer a Chinese Lantern to a bare bulb

 

Well you could NOT have been anywhere near as harsh on her as I have. I know I have really taken a hard line with her.. but wowsa.. she really got my goat. As for being an actress.. we ALL have our own way of letting our "wishful thoughts" lead us now and then. And some are that way more often.. but I think even the most "dreamy" dreamer can still live in the real world too. You have a good head on your shoulders, kid. So I say.. decorate those bulbs with all the Chinese Lanterns you like.. and dare to dream. I am too practical for my own good sometimes, I know. It is not good to lean TOO far one way or the other. (something like that old saying.. "reach for the stars, but keep your feet on the ground makes the most sense.. ha. But I am likely too afraid of heights to reach TOO far up there, I guess.) :D

 

Well, I do think you'd find a lot of things to "love to hate

 

Ha.. well you know me pretty well, because I DO love to hate a good bad guy (or gal, as the case may be) I may have to check it out, soon. I remember how you and several others talked it all up one side and down the other a while back. If it is the movie I am remembering you had quite the conversation on it.

 

There are lots of confrontations, long speeches, yes. But they do get at the heart of many things people work terribly hard to avoid confronting, including nice things like the need for love, beauty and to matter somehow

 

And see.. that is where my pre-conceived notions have been a hindrance to me all these years.. because I hold back from films I think I won't like for whatever reason.. and then I I miss out on stuff like that sometimes. I will try to keep an open Tennessee mind in the future, ha. (hey.. maybe it is one of those TOMATO things) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Hi buttertea,

I haven't seen her "Desdemona", but she was very vulnerable and soft in young cassidy . She's a consumate actress so she can do anything, it's just that she has never been a great favorite. I will say that from what I've seen of "Downton Abbey" she's found another ideal role.*

 

Young Cassidy..i havent seen that in years. I dont even remember what its about! Fabulous, i need to watch it again. I remember Maggie in it, though, and her character being, I think, shy. I do agree, she can do all!

 

I think her "Desdemona" was very much the epitomy of a fragile wife. She gets falsely accused of something that she never gets the chance to proove wrong and just takes all the grief for it. she is so oblivious and naive.

 

I've never seen Downton Abbey, but all my girlfriends down here watch it religiously and always try to get me to watch it with them. I have just never had the chance to watch it yet. What do you mean "ideal" role? As in something you would expect to see her in at her age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. *The Blue Angel (1930)* -- I wasn't captivated by this film until the final act. The last act is a knockout. It makes this film one of the very first "films noir". I was stunned to see this. The story is clearly "film noir", as a repressed older gentleman (Emil Jannings) falls for a young nightclub performer (Marlene Dietrich). Happy endings! Emil matches his brilliant performance in *The Last Laugh*. He's outstanding. It's easy to see how Marlene would find her way to Hollywood after this film. She's the more accessible Garbo.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXGMQWdXdyU

 

blueangel1_zps3dce954b.jpg

 

blueangel2_zps9fe9df3d.jpg

 

2. *Hail the Conquering Hero (1944)* -- Everything that is great about Preston Sturges can be found in this wonderful comedy. The zany characters and situations are abundant. The smart socio-political commentary is ever present. The misinterpretations are all over the place. The love for one's characters is pleasing. It's all so terrific. I loved all the performers, from Eddie Bracken and Ella Raines to the always fantastic William Demarest to the Strurges standbys of Raymond Walburn, Franklin Pangborn, and Jimmy Conlin.

 

hailtheconqueringhero2_zps360bf06d.jpg

 

3. *Life with Father (1947)* -- If you like sitcoms with a patriarchal lead, you're gonna like this film. William Powell's "Father" reminded me a great deal of "Homer Simpson" and "Archie Bunker", and that's a great thing with me. I just loved Powell in this film. He's brilliant. I also loved Irene Dunne's "dippy as a fox" wife. She's lovely. The film plays like a sitcom, as the four sons find their way into trouble, which leads to life lessons. But all of that only distracts from the fun of Bill and Irene. They are the stars of this "show".

 

"Women! They get stirred up. And then they try to get your stirred up, too. But don't you let them do it, Clarence. Don't you let them do it. Now if you can keep reason and logic in your argument, well, a man can hold his own, of course. But if they can switch you. Pretty soon the argument is about if you love them or not. I swear, I don't know how they do it. But don't you let them, Clarence. Don't you let them."

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjbNlwd4giY

 

lifewithfather4_zpsc7576e11.jpg

 

lifewithfather2_zpsf2c87fdb.jpg

 

4. *The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969)* -- The discussion about this film is precisely why I greatly enjoyed this picture. I found it all so fascinating; the methods of teaching, the damaged soul, the romanticism, the delusions, the damage one can project on the impressionable youth, the egotism, the Shakespearean/Tennessee Williams quality of the lead character, all of it. It's such a provocative film. Maggie Smith is marvelous as the titular character. She projects everything you'd want from this character.

 

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie11_zps5ec88ad9.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie10_zpsa2de4582.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie1_zps7be4be95.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie2_zps79b758ba.jpg

 

prideandthepassion3_zps4764fe8b.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie4_zpsccf8946c.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie5_zps82daf06b.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie6_zpsd204e45f.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie7_zpse0cac2ea.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie8_zpsa092966e.jpg

 

primeofmissjeanbrodie9_zpsde0d5c8b.jpg

 

5. *The Last Mile (1959)* -- Just like the previous film, this was a "Jackie" suggestion. She keeps striking gold with me. I usually don't go for "prison" flicks, but this one is pretty darn original. The first half of the film actually reminded me of *12 Angry Men* in terms of its mood. There's a jazzy score being played as we learn the characters on death row. It's humanizing. But the second half makes a drastic turn. Mickey Rooney is the star and this becomes very clear in the explosive final act. I haven't seen him like this before. It's eye-opening. This is a very good film that makes you think some.

 

6. *Hobson's Choice (1954)* -- More Jackie! And I feel there's a lot of "Jackie" in this film. It's about a demanding father (Charles Laughton) who has three daughters do everything for him, which encompasses running his home and boot shop. Dear old dad thinks it's time for his two youngest daughters to get married but Maggie (Brenda de Banzie), his eldest, is too old for this, for she is 30. :D From here on, it's all about Maggie and her determination to prove to herself and her father that she's a woman who can have what she wants. I loved Maggie's desires in the film. I loved the little love story. I also enjoyed all of the comedy. Laughton is "Laughton". He's great. John Mills plays Brenda's simple-minded love interest, and he's terrific. Now this is a film that Quiet Gal would go for.

 

hobsonschoice3_zpsf4be8126.jpg

 

hobsonschoice1_zps1d99a1c2.jpg

 

7. *In This Our Life (1942)* -- I wanted to check this film out because it's directed by John Huston. What I was very pleased to find was a great Bette Davis performance. She plays a wreck of a young woman in this picture. She goes after what is not hers just because she wants it. It's selfishness run amok in a way that only Bette can do. She puts on a real show. Charles Coburn plays a character I never thought I'd see him play. Jaw-dropping! And I really liked Bette's defeated father in the film, played by Frank Craven. I also liked the interesting ending. Times haven't changed all that much. This is a good one.

 

inthisourlife2_zps3e1ed249.jpg

 

inthisourlife4_zpsfc9fe489.jpg

 

inthisourlife5_zpscd8b3a1d.jpg

 

inthisourlife3_zpscf75d6be.jpg

 

inthisourlife1_zpsc2418b66.jpg

 

8. *Ride Clear of Diablo (1954)* -- I continue to check out Audie Murphy's westerns. And I must say, I like him. He has an interesting style that really befits the West. Baby-face and all. But as much as I like Audie, this western is all about Dan Duryea. It's one of Dan's greatest performances. While *The Burglar* is probably his best effort, this comes close. He's very "Duryea" but with a great twist. It's this great twist that elevates this western.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRHWbpvjWl4

 

rideclearofdiablo2_zpsa44da97f.jpg

 

rideclearofdiablo3_zpsf494dbb3.jpg

 

rideclearofdiablo4_zpse137d86e.jpg

 

9. *Charlie Chan in Reno (1939)* -- As Charlie Chan mysteries go, this is one of the better ones that I've seen. It all takes place in a Reno hotel with, you guessed it, an impending divorce at its heart. Other than a good story, there's also a good cast, headlined by Ricardo Cortez. He's the perfect kind of suspect, don't you think? Phyllis Brooks plays one of the female suspects. She's pretty good. While I'm still adjusting to Sidney Toler as "Chan", I really like "Number Two" son, played by Victor Sen Yung.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbC9Q4usZsg

 

charliechaninreno1_zps45bcd190.jpg

 

10. *The Notorious Landlady (1962)* -- A charming romantic comedy that plays very much like an "Audrey Hepburn" comedy. As the story goes, Mrs. Hardwicke (Kim Novak) is suspected of killing her husband. And wouldn't you know it, she is now looking to sublet her apartment. Hmmmm... Unaware of Mrs. Hardwicke's recent past, American Bill Gridley (Jack Lemmon) comes a calling, seeking a place to stay. This is a mysterious romantic comedy with lots of charm. Kim and Jack are superb. And then you also get Fred Astaire, who is pitch perfect as Jack's boss. I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Richard Quine is underrated.

 

notoriouslandlady3_zps7b1b0992.jpg

 

notoriouslandlady2_zpsc5660bdf.jpg

 

notoriouslandlady1_zpsd10e1c18.jpg

 

11. *Cesar (1936)* -- The final chapter in the "Fanny Trilogy" is the heaviest of the three. It starts off with a serious event but it's presented with a lighthearted hand. From there, the drama gets thick. The focus in the first film is on Cesar (Raimu). In the second it's Panisse (Fernand Charpin). Here the focus turns to Marius (Pierre Fresnay). I did enjoy this film, but not as much as the first one or even the second one. But the trilogy as a whole is excellent. Thank you, Jackie! The trilogy plays as life does. It starts off easy, fun, and humorous. But as life unfolds, it gets more and more serious, more dramatic.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqn-p_EImjE&list=PLF476692F41EB221F

 

cesar2_zps21e7a956.jpg

 

cesar1_zps6437e3fa.jpg

 

12. *Thunder on the Hill (1951)* -- A Douglas Sirk mystery? Sign me up! The mystery takes place in a convent during a raging storm. Those living in the surrounding village and those on the road have sought shelter here. One of these people is a woman (Ann Blyth) sentenced to death in the morning for killing a man. Claudette Colbert plays one of the nuns in charge at the convent. She starts to believe in the woman's innocence. While this isn't a great film, it's still quite good. The mood and the performances are strong. Alfred Hitchcock must have been "inspired" by the ending for one of his own greatest endings.

 

thunderonthehill1_zpsf407d849.jpg

 

13. *The Lavender Hill Mob (1951)* -- I found this madcap caper film to be quite amusing. It helps that Alec Guinness is the driving force behind an elaborate scheme to rob his employ of gold bullion. Alec is such a joy to watch in these dark comedies. He's masterful. Stanley Holloway is the other primary member of the "mob" and he does a nice job of keeping up with Alec. A fun little film.

 

lavenderhillmob1_zpsc154c479.jpg

 

lavenderhillmob2_zpsc0104771.jpg

 

lavenderhillmob3_zps500b721d.jpg

 

14. *The Last Time I Saw Paris (1954)* -- Van Johnson was in some interesting films in the 50s; ones with good emotional torment. Here Van plays a writer who falls in love with Elizabeth Taylor and their life together becomes the focus of our film. It's a rocky ride. Liz is quite marvelous in the film. I really haven't seen her like this. I liked her a lot. I also haven't seen Donna Reed and Walter Pidgeon play the characters they do in this one. It was especially shocking to see Donna as she is. The ending to this film has a good kick. A really nice film.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngO56wwB-Zc

 

15. *Ringside Maisie (1941)* -- A very entertaining "Maisie" film! It's my second favorite, thus far. Maisie (Ann Sothern) was back to being "Maisie"; full of great spunk. In this outing, Maisie finds herself "rescued" by a boxer (Robert Sterling) whose best friend (George Murphy) also serves as his manager. The ambitious manager has his eyes set on the title but does his meal ticket feel the same? Adding to the emotion in the film is the boxer's wheelchair-bound mother, played by Margaret Moffatt. There's a lot in play. And the boxing scenes are actually good.

 

16. *The Atomic Submarine (1959)* -- I found this precursor to *Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea* to be rather captivating. A big reason why is the "confrontation". How this is shown and what it's all about is terribly fascinating. The special effects are very cheesy, though. The usage of a miniatures is heavy. The cast counteracts the poor production values. Arthur Franz is prickly in the lead while his supporting cast is wise, led by Dick Foran, Tom Conway, and Bob Steele.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm1PMVSN9f0

 

atomicsubmarine3_zpsc960a4b0.jpg

 

atomicsubmarine2_zps8bc2dda3.jpg

 

atomicsubmarine1_zps28640837.jpg

 

17. *Split Second (1953)* -- I was mostly into this A-bomb film noir that has a similar set-up to that of *The Petrified Forest*. Stephen McNally plays an escaped convict who holds travelers hostage in a Nevada "ghost town" made so due to an impending A-bomb test. McNally is sensational. He's not to be trifled with. The rest of the cast is also terrific. Jan Sterling and Alexis Smith really shine as the two captive women. Keith Andes, Arthur Hunnicutt, Richard Egan, and Frank DeKova are the men involved. Arthur is a hoot and I really enjoyed Keith. And there's also Paul Kelly! He just had to be there.

 

18. *The Hands of Orlac (1924)* -- A slow-moving German Expressionist film that is brought to life by the moody performance of Conrad Veidt and the cold, dark visuals. *Mad Love* is the Hollywood remake of this film. While I do prefer *Mad Love*, this one has its appeal. It's a great example of German Expressionism, actually. Veidt is brilliant in the lead. It's one of his best performances.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGff-jovycQ

 

handsoforlac1_zps70164e18.jpg

 

19. *Horizons West (1952)* -- This Budd Boetticher western is a mix of film noir and gangster pic. It's about a returning war vet (film noir) who has ambitions to take over the town (gangster). And who plays this fella? Why Robert Ryan! I found the first half of the film to be pretty interesting, as Ryan attempts to establish himself in some snobby town called "Austin". His run-ins with Raymond Burr are entertaining. The film becomes unbelievable in the second half, though. I like Julia Adams. She has a terrific look. Rock Hudson is around, but his character is bland. And for you Gunsmoke fans around here, you're going to find James Arness and Dennis Weaver in this picture. And not in bit roles, either.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_rP9IRAkrk

 

horizonswest4_zpsafaa8098.png

 

horizonswest5_zpse2ea3e7a.jpg

 

horizonswest2_zps91b55b9b.jpg

 

horizonswest3_zps07bdb529.jpg

 

horizonswest1_zpsb66c98ab.jpg

 

horizonswest6_zps974e1455.jpg

 

20. *The Unknown Man (1951)* -- Walter Pidgeon as a laywer in a crime flick? It sounds boring. But it's not. In fact, there's a major twist to this film that makes it compelling. This is a "moral dilemma" film, one Quiet Gal would probably find interesting. Ann Harding plays Walt's wife. She isn't given much to do until later on. Barry Sullivan plays the district attorney pal of Walter's. It's a good role for Barry.

 

21. *When Strangers Marry (1944)* -- This film fits snugly into the "women in peril" genre that the 40s did so superbly. Having said that, I feel it falls short. The title makes the film self-explanatory, as a woman (Kim Hunter) marries a man (Dean Jagger) she just met. Does she really know this guy? Of course not! Could her husband actually be a murderer? Robert Mitchum plays the third party in this triangle flick. His presence is probably why I liked the film enough.

 

http://viooz.co/movies/9635-when-strangers-marry-1944.html

 

*22. Mata Hari (1931)* -- You'd think the story of "Mata Hari" would make one heckuva film. But not in this film. "Mata Hari" the story doesn't really exist. No, this film is all about the passion and romance between Mata Hari (Greta Garbo) and Lieutenant Rosanoff (Ramon Novarro). And on that level, the film succeeds with me. I loved the "silent film" passion between these two former silent stars. Their scenes spark. Also to be found in the film is Lionel Barrymore, as one of Mata Hari's love interests. Lionel is playing a German general. Uh-huh.

 

matahari2_zpscac43b1c.jpg

 

matahari1_zpsf4178002.jpg

 

23. *Kongo (1932)* -- "He sneered." This is easily one of the strangest films that I've seen. If you like sadism, you're going to like this one. I haven't seen a character as hateful as Walter Huston's "Flint". He's a force to be reckoned with. And those dealing with him are Virginia Bruce, Lupe Velez, Conrad Nagel, Mitchell Lewis, and Forrester Harvey. Virginia and Conrad are especially dealing with him, while also fighting their own demons. What a mess! Now I need to watch *West of Zanzibar*. It can't be this harsh!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyLVJhAnajk

 

24. *A Woman's Face (1938)* -- The Swedish version of *A Woman's Face* stars a pre-Hollywood Ingrid Bergman in the lead. To watch Joan Crawford and then Ingrid is quite a sight. I'm amazed the two would even play similar roles, since they are so very different as actresses. And you will see this in the tone of each of their performances with this film. I liked the ending to the Swedish film more than the Hollywood one. But, overall, I like the Hollywood version more. It's much more dramatic with greater depth. But if you are interested in seeing a more straightforward, subtle telling of the story, I suggest the Swedish version.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4_0zUcZ2lQ

 

25. *Heroes for Sale (1933)* -- The beginning to this film had me drooling. I thought the film was going to be about war-induced drug addiction in the early-30s. I was all ready to hail this film. But the film quickly leaves that behind and it adds more and more to it. By film's end, I could have sworn I just watched the "Forrest Gump" of the Great Depression. William Wellman basically looked to cover as many social issues as he possibly could in one picture. This watered down the product for me. I did like the performance of stony Richard Barthelmess. He fits this Depression Era. Aline MacMahon and Charley Grapewin are the two I liked most.

 

heroesforsale2_zps8e100141.jpg

 

heroesforsale5_zpse0deb6c1.jpg

 

heroesforsale3_zpsfea9591c.jpg

 

26. *State Fair (1933)* -- Is this the first family vacation/summer love film? I tend to like such films. And this one is super sweet. You have to like your sweet in heavy dosages, though. For me, it helps that Will Rogers is here. That's the reason I watched the film. And Will spends the entire film fussing over his prize pig, "Blue Boy". Janet Gaynor is actually the star of the film, as she falls for Lew Ayres at the state fair. Her brother (Norman Foster, a future director) also finds his own romance. And then there's Ma (Louise Dresser), who is looking to win the ribbon for best mincemeat and pickles. There's nothing profound about this film. It's purely a sweet family pic.

 

27. *The Tender Trap (1955)* -- It's the stars involved in this production that make the film. The story is pretty common, a swinger falls for a sweet girl, but its components are good. Frank Sinatra plays the swinger, of course. He's not too deep in the film, but I always like seeing Frank making the moves. I'm still new to Debbie Reynolds. I prefer her in *Susan Slept Here*, but she's good here, too. Her and her definite plans. Women! But the stars of the film are David Wayne and Celeste Holm. Wayne is a riot as Frank's mid-life-crisis friend from out of town. And Celeste is attractive as Frank's "steady". I also love all the ladies who walk in and out of Frank's apartment. Miss G is even there! Her name is "Jessica".

 

tendertrap3_zpsf52a8909.jpg

 

tendertrap4_zps56fc7918.jpg

 

tendertrap5_zps110ad023.jpg

 

tendertrap2_zps9ae029a5.jpg

 

Here's some more Miss G!:

 

tendertrap1_zps69b1feca.jpg

 

28. *Golden Earrings (1947)* -- Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich in a gypsy love story? Get out! It sounds ludicrous. And it really is. But there's one thing the film really has going for it: love and passion. It's that love and passion that won me over in the end. I love that the film really isolates Ray and Marlene. The vast majority of the time is spent with them. To think of Marlene being in the dirt! Marlene?!

 

 

goldenearrings1_zpsbe25ff6b.jpg

 

goldenearrings2_zpsf18b8e8f.jpg

 

29. *Torchy Blane in Panama (1938)* -- Where did Torchy and Steve go? Who are these impostors?! There's no Glenda Farrell or Barton MacLane in this film. Nope. In their stead is Lola Lane and, and... it's him again! Paul Kelly! Lola was pretty good as "Torchy". Paul, on the other hand, not so much. I ended up liking this film because the star is actually Gahagan (Tom Kennedy). I was shocked to see this! And Gahagan is funny as always.

 

30. *A Connecticut Yankee (1931)* -- Will Rogers meets Mark Twain... interesting! Will ends up being transported back to the days of King Arthur's court thanks to a mad genius' (Brandon Hurst) time machine. The events that occur are all right, but the fun and humor comes from Will's lines and his critiques of the day. Maureen O'Sullivan and Myrna Loy play sisters, but neither is given much to do. As Jackie pointed out, one of the highlights of the film is seeing Will rope and ride.

 

31. *Suspense (1946)* -- Are you looking for a highly unique film noir, albeit an underwhelming one? May I suggest this film. Could you ever imagine film noir ice-capades? Here you go! Belita plays the star attraction at a local ice show. She's married to the boss (Albert Dekker) and the new hire (Barry Sullivan) has set his sight on her. And guess who the boss' right-hand man is? Eugene Pallette! It's all so strange! I actually found Belita to be mesmerizing.

 

32. *The Great Moment (1944)* -- I can't believe I have recently watched two films about the invent of anesthesia. They are presented much differently, though. Here, Preston Sturges plays it light, in a loose re-telling of the tale of Dr. William Thomas Morton, a dentist who sought to lessen the pain of oral surgery. Joel McCrea plays Morton. He plays it straight. William Demarest, on the other hand, is used for comedy. Betty Field and Harry Carey are also around. The film isn't bad, it's just not "Preston Sturges".

 

greatmoment1_zps56c8c62e.jpg

 

33. *711 Ocean Drive (1950)* -- I tend to like Edmond O'Brien's films noir. He's such an unlikely protagonist. He's certainly "regular guy". Here, O'Brien plays an unhappy telephone electrician who ends up being wooed into the world of organized crime, namely the bookmaking business. The story had great potential, but how it all plays out just didn't do it for me. Joanne Dru plays O'Brien's love interest, but I actually liked Dorothy Patrick's "Trudy" more. Otto Kruger plays a good heavy, as he usually does. The ending takes place at an impressive site, but I feel it's done poorly.

 

34. *Sunrise at Campobello (1960)* -- Uh-oh, a biopic. I'm worried! But I actually liked this one. It's about FDR's struggle with his polio-induced paralysis. Ralph Bellamy plays the former president and he does so beautifully. This is Ralph's greatest performance, in my eyes. But as good as Ralph is, I liked Hume Cronyn even more. Hume plays FDR's political adviser, Louis Howe. He brings a touch of everything to the film. Greer Garson plays Eleanor. It's a good role for her... if you can get past the false teeth. The ending is very nice.

 

35. *The Dangerous Passage (1944)* -- If you ever wonder how I stumble across no-name cheapies like this, it's because they are included in the public domain DVD collections that I have. I kind of like watching these films for a change of pace. And I usually like them for what they are. This was the case with this film. The story is about a guy (Robert Lowery) who is set to inherit thousands of dollars if he can get from Mexico to Texas... alive. There are some shady folks around who are looking to steal his identity. Phyllis Brooks plays the love interest. The film mostly takes place on a ship, and there is danger all around.

 

 

dangerouspassage1_zpsab650318.jpg

 

36. *Comanche Territory (1950)* -- It's Maureen O'Hara! That's all that counts, right? Well, no, not with me. The good news about this film is that Maureen has her "Miss G" moments. She even gets the "McLintock!" treatment, at one point. But the film isn't about her, it's about Jim Bowie (MacDonald Carey) and his helping the Comanches protect their treaty with the U.S. government. Carey isn't the best of heroic leads and this does hold the film back some for me. Will Geer plays his sidekick. He's mostly there for humor's sake, ala Gabby Hayes.

 

comancheterritory1_zps485e32d6.jpg

 

comancheterritory2_zps02f3abdf.jpg

 

37. *Operator 13 (1934)* -- You will have to place modern-day sensibilities to the side when watching this film if you're to enjoy it. You will be cringing through some of it, I'll say that. What I liked most about this Civil War spy pic (women, by the way) was Marion Davies. She's pretty fun in the film... despite the one seriously bad aspect. Surprisingly, Gary Cooper just seems to be around. He doesn't really make that big of an impact. It's a shame, too. I liked the music of the Mills Brothers. What about the story? The concept is great, but the telling ain't the best. I didn't like the ending, at all.

 

operator132_zps3ba967a2.jpg

 

operator133_zps6243b07f.jpg

 

operator13_zps5b54019a.jpg

 

38. *Buck Privates (1941)* -- A military musical? Nooooooooooooooooooo! This is not the A&C I like! I have learned that Abbott & Costello were nearly secondary in these early films. Here, it's more about the Andrews Sisters and a love triangle. While I do like some of the Andrews Sisters' songs, I was worn out by film's end. It's real trouble when Lee Bowman is who I like the most!

 

buckprivates1_zps084b55e4.jpg

 

buckprivates2_zpsaad67cd5.jpg

 

buckprivates3_zpsff384b22.jpg

 

39. *White Zombie (1932)* -- I thought this film dragged... a lot. I guess that's what you get when the majority of the characters in the film don't speak! On the bright side, Bela Lugosi is tremendous in the picture. It's a great performance by him. He doesn't have to speak for me to be mesmerized. He's definitely a "silent" actor. What I did like about this film was its message about love. It's pretty sneaky to have such a message in this kind of horror flick. But it really fits.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3JGItKPT8g

 

40. *Tonight and Every Night (1945)* -- Why am I such a completist? The pain! At least I got to see Rita Hayworth. And I mean see! If you're one to like very colorful musicals, I can see you liking this one. Me, uhhhhhhhhhh... And it's Lee Bowman again! Ugh! I thought Janet Blair was cute, though. Especially in jammies! "You Excite Me".

 

tonightandeverynight3_zps5ee8b658.jpg

 

tonightandeverynight1_zps04dc2f97.jpg

 

tonightandeverynight2_zps4a4a573d.jpg

 

41. *If I Had a Million (1932)* -- I'm not a big fan of episodic films. It's almost impossible for me to like the stories across the board. And this usually ends up annoying me. This film is no different. I loved the W.C. Fields segment of the film but others didn't do much for me. Ernst Lubitsch's segment with Charles Laughton is funny, but it's over in a blink. Then we're stuck with the others! I did like George Raft's story. Gary Cooper's story? Not so much.

 

42. *Fire Over England (1937)* -- A film about the Crown with Laurence Olivier? It's a horror film! And it was. Thank goodness for Vivien Leigh and Flora Robson. Viv is her darling self in a smaller role. At least she's looking to love. Flora plays Queen Elizabeth I and she does so with such warmth. I couldn't believe how human she was. My issue with the film is that it just seems like a lot of "back and forth". We just keep bouncing around with Olivier. I think an espionage film should be more thrilling than that.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwQHIwpslN4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And see.. that is where my pre-conceived notions have been a hindrance to me all these years.. because I hold back from films I think I won't like for whatever reason.. and then I I miss out on stuff like that sometimes. I will try to keep an open Tennessee mind in the future, ha. (hey.. maybe it is one of those TOMATO things)

 

*Suddenly Last Summer* definitely gives one a lot to talk about, lol. It's really a "horror story" unlike any I've ever seen, and pretty twisted.

 

I don't think you will be crazy about any of the Williams films, especially as I don't think any of them feature performers you like much. But you'll find lots to go "peacemaker" over. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think her "Desdemona" was very much the epitomy of a fragile wife. She gets falsely accused of something that she never gets the chance to proove wrong and just takes all the grief for it. she is so oblivious and naive.

 

I've always liked the play, so I'm sure I'll get around to watching it soon. Have you seen Orson Welles' version? I like it tremendously.

 

I've never seen Downton Abbey, but all my girlfriends down here watch it religiously and always try to get me to watch it with them. I have just never had the chance to watch it yet. What do you mean "ideal" role? As in something you would expect to see her in at her age?

 

I've only seen one episode, but the role Maggie plays is evidently "tailor made" for her.

 

Maggie always reminds me a great deal of Bette Davis, only in the English style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The Blue Angel (1930) -- I wasn't captivated by this film until the final act. The last act is a knockout. It makes this film one of the very first "films noir". I was stunned to see this. The story is clearly "film noir", as a repressed older gentleman (Emil Jannings) falls for a young nightclub performer (Marlene Dietrich). Happy endings! Emil matches his brilliant performance in The Last Laugh. He's outstanding. It's easy to see how Marlene would find her way to Hollywood after this film. She's the more accessible Garbo.

 

I just knew you'd love this movie. I personally do not like it, it's the kind of story that annoys me.

 

2. Hail the Conquering Hero (1944) -- Everything that is great about Preston Sturges can be found in this wonderful comedy. The zany characters and situations are abundant. The smart socio-political commentary is ever present. The misinterpretations are all over the place. The love for one's characters is pleasing. It's all so terrific. I loved all the performers, from Eddie Bracken and Ella Raines to the always fantastic William Demarest to the Strurges standbys of Raymond Walburn, Franklin Pangborn, and Jimmy Conlin.

 

Eddie Bracken is a stumbling block for me. I find him too annoying to enjoy the films. I also rarely like "sap" movies.

 

3. Life with Father (1947) -- If you like sitcoms with a patriarchal lead, you're gonna like this film. William Powell's "Father" reminded me a great deal of "Homer Simpson" and "Archie Bunker", and that's a great thing with me. I just loved Powell in this film. He's brilliant. I also loved Irene Dunne's "dippy as a fox" wife. She's lovely. The film plays like a sitcom, as the four sons find their way into trouble, which leads to life lessons. But all of that only distracts from the fun of Bill and Irene. They are the stars of this "show".

 

I never thought about the sit-com aspect at all! It's a childhood favorite. Powell is absolutely brilliant, it's such a different character for him and Irene is superb. I love how she gets her way, every time.

 

"Women! They get stirred up. And then they try to get your stirred up, too. But don't you let them do it, Clarence. Don't you let them do it. Now if you can keep reason and logic in your argument, well, a man can hold his own, of course. But if they can switch you. Pretty soon the argument is about if you love them or not. I swear, I don't know how they do it. But don't you let them, Clarence. Don't you let them." --- hilarious speech!

 

 

5. The Last Mile (1959) -- Just like the previous film, this was a "Jackie" suggestion. She keeps striking gold with me. I usually don't go for "prison" flicks, but this one is pretty darn original. The first half of the film actually reminded me of 12 Angry Men in terms of its mood. There's a jazzy score being played as we learn the characters on death row. It's humanizing. But the second half makes a drastic turn. Mickey Rooney is the star and this becomes very clear in the explosive final act. I haven't seen him like this before. It's eye-opening. This is a very good film that makes you think some.

 

I'm not sure I've ever seen it. The title is the same as a play in which Spencer Tracy appeared. John Ford saw him in it and encouraged him to head to Hollywood.

 

While he can be "too much" at times, I've always avowed Rooney is a brilliant dramatic actor.

 

7. In This Our Life (1942) -- I wanted to check this film out because it's directed by John Huston. What I was very pleased to find was a great Bette Davis performance. She plays a wreck of a young woman in this picture. She goes after what is not hers just because she wants it. It's selfishness run amok in a way that only Bette can do. She puts on a real show. Charles Coburn plays a character I never thought I'd see him play. Jaw-dropping! And I really liked Bette's defeated father in the film, played by Frank Craven. I also liked the interesting ending. Times haven't changed all that much. This is a good one.

 

You are so unpredictable! I figured you would have loathed Bette and the whole thing. It is entertaining and the Charles Coburn twist is what really bends one's mind. This and his doctor in *King's Row* really show what an outstanding actor he was.

 

8. Ride Clear of Diablo (1954) -- I continue to check out Audie Murphy's westerns. And I must say, I like him. He has an interesting style that really befits the West. Baby-face and all. But as much as I like Audie, this western is all about Dan Duryea. It's one of Dan's greatest performances. While The Burglar is probably his best effort, this comes close. He's very "Duryea" but with a great twist. It's this great twist that elevates this western.

 

His face is "baby", isn't it? But there is a coldness to his eyes that I suppose comes from his war experiences (and being from Texas). This lends that note of authenticity.

 

I'm happy that his westerns have seen a resurgence in popularity and availability on DVD. He tends to have always lurked in the shadows of Wayne, Stewart, et al, mostly because he didn't work with too many A-list directors.

 

10. The Notorious Landlady (1962) -- A charming romantic comedy that plays very much like an "Audrey Hepburn" comedy. As the story goes, Mrs. Hardwicke (Kim Novak) is suspected of killing her husband. And wouldn't you know it, she is now looking to sublet her apartment. Hmmmm... Unaware of Mrs. Hardwicke's recent past, American Bill Gridley (Jack Lemmon) comes a calling, seeking a place to stay. This is a mysterious romantic comedy with lots of charm. Kim and Jack are superb. And then you also get Fred Astaire, who is pitch perfect as Jack's boss. I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Richard Quine is underrated.

 

I've only seen parts of this and didn't care much for it. You are going to have to explain where the "Audrey Hepburn" comparison comes in. I can't imagine anything less like Audrey...

 

12. Thunder on the Hill (1951) -- A Douglas Sirk mystery? Sign me up! The mystery takes place in a convent during a raging storm. Those living in the surrounding village and those on the road have sought shelter here. One of these people is a woman (Ann Blyth) sentenced to death in the morning for killing a man. Claudette Colbert plays one of the nuns in charge at the convent. She starts to believe in the woman's innocence. While this isn't a great film, it's still quite good. The mood and the performances are strong. Alfred Hitchcock must have been "inspired" by the ending for one of his own greatest endings.

 

I swear this scenario was used in either "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" or "The Twilight Zone", but with male characters instead of female. I'm very curious to see this film.

 

19. Horizons West (1952) -- This Budd Boetticher western is a mix of film noir and gangster pic. It's about a returning war vet (film noir) who has ambitions to take over the town (gangster). And who plays this fella? Why Robert Ryan! I found the first half of the film to be pretty interesting, as Ryan attempts to establish himself in some snobby town called "Austin". His run-ins with Raymond Burr are entertaining. The film becomes unbelievable in the second half, though. I like Julia Adams. She has a terrific look. Rock Hudson is around, but his character is bland. And for you Gunsmoke fans around here, you're going to find James Arness and Dennis Weaver in this picture. And not in bit roles, either.

 

I have to see this one! I can't believe Jim and Dennis appeared in a western before "Gunsmoke". And that picture of Jim holding a lamby is too cute for words!

 

I love Ryan in western garb. He's so sexy.

 

 

21. When Strangers Marry (1944) -- This film fits snugly into the "women in peril" genre that the 40s did so superbly. Having said that, I feel it falls short. The title makes the film self-explanatory, as a woman (Kim Hunter) marries a man (Dean Jagger) she just met. Does she really know this guy? Of course not! Could her husband actually be a murderer? Robert Mitchum plays the third party in this triangle flick. His presence is probably why I liked the film enough.

 

The "noirish" style, and the incongruous casting of Kim Hunter, Dean Jagger and Robert Mitchum was enough for me to enjoy it, if it wasn't "all that". Dean Jagger rarely got to play anyone like this, I mean almost a "leading man" type. You never see him with a woman in a movie. He's sexless, usually.

 

22. Mata Hari (1931) -- You'd think the story of "Mata Hari" would make one heckuva film. But not in this film. "Mata Hari" the story doesn't really exist. No, this film is all about the passion and romance between Mata Hari (Greta Garbo) and Lieutenant Rosanoff (Ramon Novarro). And on that level, the film succeeds with me. I loved the "silent film" passion between these two former silent stars. Their scenes spark. Also to be found in the film is Lionel Barrymore, as one of Mata Hari's love interests. Lionel is playing a German general. Uh-huh.

 

This one is too much for me, I never cared for the vulgarity of seeing Garbo dancing lewdly. Now, this "silent passion" you speak of I do appreciate MUCH more in some of her others silents, especially *Wild Orchids*.

 

27. The Tender Trap (1955) -- It's the stars involved in this production that make the film. The story is pretty common, a swinger falls for a sweet girl, but its components are good. Frank Sinatra plays the swinger, of course. He's not too deep in the film, but I always like seeing Frank making the moves. I'm still new to Debbie Reynolds. I prefer her in Susan Slept Here, but she's good here, too. Her and her definite plans. Women! But the stars of the film are David Wayne and Celeste Holm. Wayne is a riot as Frank's mid-life-crisis friend from out of town. And Celeste is attractive as Frank's "steady". I also love all the ladies who walk in and out of Frank's apartment. Miss G is even there! Her name is "Jessica".

 

I'm not like that! I can't believe you like Frank as a "swinger". I'm not as crazy about those roles. I prefer him more serious. But he looks great in orange. :D

 

David Wayne and Celeste are excellent.

 

28. Golden Earrings (1947) -- Ray Milland and Marlene Dietrich in a gypsy love story? Get out! It sounds ludicrous. And it really is. But there's one thing the film really has going for it: love and passion. It's that love and passion that won me over in the end. I love that the film really isolates Ray and Marlene. The vast majority of the time is spent with them. To think of Marlene being in the dirt! Marlene?!

 

Though it's been some time since I watched it, I felt as you do---it's a fun film and Marlene totally surprised me that she could pull off such a role.

 

 

30. A Connecticut Yankee (1931) -- Will Rogers meets Mark Twain... interesting! Will ends up being transported back to the days of King Arthur's court thanks to a mad genius' (Brandon Hurst) time machine. The events that occur are all right, but the fun and humor comes from Will's lines and his critiques of the day. Maureen O'Sullivan and Myrna Loy play sisters, but neither is given much to do. As Jackie pointed out, one of the highlights of the film is seeing Will rope and ride.

 

Rogers and Twain are a match made in heaven, but they would have needed a John Ford and a Nichols/Trotti screewriting team to do them justice.

 

33. 711 Ocean Drive (1950) -- I tend to like Edmond O'Brien's films noir. He's such an unlikely protagonist. He's certainly "regular guy". Here, O'Brien plays an unhappy telephone electrician who ends up being wooed into the world of organized crime, namely the bookmaking business. The story had great potential, but how it all plays out just didn't do it for me. Joanne Dru plays O'Brien's love interest, but I actually liked Dorothy Patrick's "Trudy" more. Otto Kruger plays a good heavy, as he usually does. The ending takes place at an impressive site, but I feel it's done poorly.

 

I agree about the ending, but I enjoyed it probably more than most. Love Ed in noirs.

 

36. Comanche Territory (1950) -- It's Maureen O'Hara! That's all that counts, right? Well, no, not with me. The good news about this film is that Maureen has her "Miss G" moments. She even gets the "McLintock!" treatment, at one point. But the film isn't about her, it's about Jim Bowie (MacDonald Carey) and his helping the Comanches protect their treaty with the U.S. government. Carey isn't the best of heroic leads and this does hold the film back some for me. Will Geer plays his sidekick. He's mostly there for humor's sake, ala Gabby Hayes.

 

I agree with you on this one, I saw it a while ago and found it underwhelming.

 

40. Tonight and Every Night (1945) -- Why am I such a completist? The pain! At least I got to see Rita Hayworth. And I mean see! If you're one to like very colorful musicals, I can see you liking this one. Me, uhhhhhhhhhh... And it's Lee Bowman again! Ugh! I thought Janet Blair was cute, though. Especially in jammies! "You Excite Me".

 

I didn't care for it either. I'm not a fan of Rita's musicals, aside from the Astaire ones and *Pal Joey*. Yet I love her dancing, she was one of the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Dahlink!

 

I have a cuppa the Monet tea you got me in my hands right now. I'm down to the very very last of it. I saved it for a long time, because I was always afraid of running out too soon. Heehee! How are you this pretty day?

 

I've always liked the play, so I'm sure I'll get around to watching it soon. Have you seen Orson Welles' version? I like it tremendously.

 

GASP!! I always liked the play too! Yay! It's my favorite of Shakespeare's tragic dramas.

 

I have seen the Orson Welles' version, *The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice*. It has slightly a higher rating on IMDB than Larry Olivier's version, and that kind of surprises me, but I can see why. Olivier's was a bit more stagey than Welles' production, but I really liked the acting in Olivier's. I thought the cast was absolutely brilliant!

 

What do you like most about Welles' version?

 

I've only seen one episode, but the role Maggie plays is evidently "tailor made" for her.

 

I need to see at least one episode to see what all the hype is about, apparently. Heehee! Did you like that one episode?

 

*Maggie always reminds me a great deal of Bette Davis, only in the English style.*

 

Interesting comparison. I would never have seen that, but I can see the resemblances with their methods when I examine closely. She was definitely never afraid to take risks. I think a big difference between Davis and Smith is that Davis could easily handle a few comedies (like The Bride Came C. O. D) as well as dramas and I just can't see Maggie handling a good comic role well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good afternoon Frank-a-zoid!

 

1. The Blue Angel (1930) -- I wasn't captivated by this film until the final act. The last act is a knockout. It makes this film one of the very first "films noir". I was stunned to see this. The story is clearly "film noir", as a repressed older gentleman (Emil Jannings) falls for a young nightclub performer (Marlene Dietrich). Happy endings! Emil matches his brilliant performance in The Last Laugh. He's outstanding. It's easy to see how Marlene would find her way to Hollywood after this film. She's the more accessible Garbo.

 

So does this change your mind about Marlene in particular?

 

2. Hail the Conquering Hero (1944) -- Everything that is great about Preston Sturges can be found in this wonderful comedy. The zany characters and situations are abundant. The smart socio-political commentary is ever present. The misinterpretations are all over the place. The love for one's characters is pleasing. It's all so terrific. I loved all the performers, from Eddie Bracken and Ella Raines to the always fantastic William Demarest to the Strurges standbys of Raymond Walburn, Franklin Pangborn, and Jimmy Conlin.

 

I always love Eddie Bracken in anything. He gives a fresh perspective on the more physical side of comedy....like Jack kind of!

 

3. Life with Father (1947) -- If you like sitcoms with a patriarchal lead, you're gonna like this film. William Powell's "Father" reminded me a great deal of "Homer Simpson" and "Archie Bunker", and that's a great thing with me. I just loved Powell in this film. He's brilliant. I also loved Irene Dunne's "dippy as a fox" wife. She's lovely. The film plays like a sitcom, as the four sons find their way into trouble, which leads to life lessons. But all of that only distracts from the fun of Bill and Irene. They are the stars of this "show".

 

This is just a loverly film all around. I love Irene with William Powell. They make a cute bickering couple who really love each other. Their relationship is kind of manipulative in a way, but a soft, funny kind of way. It's also very refreshing to see William get overthrown by a woman's emotions. Usually he does a bang up job wearing the pants. I mean, he tries here, but doesn't get very far in them. Heehee!

 

7. In This Our Life (1942) -- I wanted to check this film out because it's directed by John Huston. What I was very pleased to find was a great Bette Davis performance. She plays a wreck of a young woman in this picture. She goes after what is not hers just because she wants it. It's selfishness run amok in a way that only Bette can do. She puts on a real show. Charles Coburn plays a character I never thought I'd see him play. Jaw-dropping! And I really liked Bette's defeated father in the film, played by Frank Craven. I also liked the interesting ending. Times haven't changed all that much. This is a good one.

 

This one really unhinged me. The relationships are sooo disoriented. No wonder you love it! :P:P There is so much to the plot, racism, suicide, lack of loyalty, yes, selfishness, and everything else. It's chaos.

 

8. Ride Clear of Diablo (1954) -- I continue to check out Audie Murphy's westerns. And I must say, I like him. He has an interesting style that really befits the West. Baby-face and all. But as much as I like Audie, this western is all about Dan Duryea. It's one of Dan's greatest performances. While The Burglar is probably his best effort, this comes close. He's very "Duryea" but with a great twist. It's this great twist that elevates this western.

 

You, know I wasn't truly intrigued by this one. I don't know if it was Murphy or the plot itself. I always like Duryea's ability to stun an audience no matter the role, but I always see him as the arrogant bad guy in my head. Heehee! He has great presence.

 

Have you seen *The Red Badge of Courage* yet? If you like Murphy, you might like this one. It's not one of his westerns, but it's considered one of his great performances. Personally, I sort of fell asleep during it. Ooopsey! :P It's really slow in a lot of parts.

 

*10. The Notorious Landlady (1962) -- A charming romantic comedy that plays very much like an "Audrey Hepburn" comedy. As the story goes, Mrs. Hardwicke (Kim Novak) is suspected of killing her husband. And wouldn't you know it, she is now looking to sublet her apartment. Hmmmm... Unaware of Mrs. Hardwicke's recent past, American Bill Gridley (Jack Lemmon) comes a calling, seeking a place to stay. This is a mysterious romantic comedy with lots of charm. Kim and Jack are superb. And then you also get Fred Astaire, who is pitch perfect as Jack's boss. I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Richard Quine is underrated.*

 

I really liked this one!! This is definitely one of my favorite roles of Novak's! It's cute and mysterious at the same time! astaire really surprises me every time I see it. you wouldn't expect him in a role like this, or at least I wouldn't, but he continually shines! I love the sexiness that Kim brings to the forefront.

 

*14. The Last Time I Saw Paris (1954) -- Van Johnson was in some interesting films in the 50s; ones with good emotional torment. Here Van plays a writer who falls in love with Elizabeth Taylor and their life together becomes the focus of our film. It's a rocky ride. Liz is quite marvelous in the film. I really haven't seen her like this. I liked her a lot. I also haven't seen Donna Reed and Walter Pidgeon play the characters they do in this one. It was especially shocking to see Donna as she is. The ending to this film has a good kick. A really nice film.*

 

**Spoiler in Paris**

I really liked the combo of Walter and Vanji together! And you are right, Walter's chatacter is very different in this one for this time period, but his later roles sort of resembled the characteristics he displays here. I really wanted to see more of Eva Gabor. I didn't ultimately like what happened to Vanjie and Elizabeth's relationship, but I love the look of pure joy and relief when he sees his daughter at the end. It made me cry!...no laughing at me!

 

21. When Strangers Marry (1944) -- This film fits snugly into the "women in peril" genre that the 40s did so superbly. Having said that, I feel it falls short. The title makes the film self-explanatory, as a woman (Kim Hunter) marries a man (Dean Jagger) she just met. Does she really know this guy? Of course not! Could her husband actually be a murderer? Robert Mitchum plays the third party in this triangle flick. His presence is probably why I liked the film enough.

 

I had a feeling you would like Mitchum in this piece! Always loving the person who wreaks havoc. tsk tsk tsk... :P

 

*23. Kongo (1932) -- "He sneered." This is easily one of the strangest films that I've seen. If you like sadism, you're going to like this one. I haven't seen a character as hateful as Walter Huston's "Flint". He's a force to be reckoned with. And those dealing with him are Virginia Bruce, Lupe Velez, Conrad Nagel, Mitchell Lewis, and Forrester Harvey. Virginia and Conrad are especially dealing with him, while also fighting their own demons. What a mess! Now I need to watch West of Zanzibar. It can't be this harsh!*

 

I can honestly say that I agree with you about "Flint". This performance of Huston's, is why I have such a hard time grasping him as someone I really esteem. But I will hand it to him. He is convincing.

 

*24. A Woman's Face (1938) -- The Swedish version of A Woman's Face stars a pre-Hollywood Ingrid Bergman in the lead. To watch Joan Crawford and then Ingrid is quite a sight. I'm amazed the two would even play similar roles, since they are so very different as actresses. And you will see this in the tone of each of their performances with this film. I liked the ending to the Swedish film more than the Hollywood one. But, overall, I like the Hollywood version more. It's much more dramatic with greater depth. But if you are interested in seeing a more straightforward, subtle telling of the story, I suggest the Swedish version.*

 

I still have to see this version. I keep meaning to, but I always miss it. I am really wanting to see it to compare. I have a feeling I will like it a lot more than the Crawford one, but that might be a pre-conceived biased opinion. Heehee!

 

*25. Heroes for Sale (1933) -- The beginning to this film had me drooling. I thought the film was going to be about war-induced drug addiction in the early-30s. I was all ready to hail this film. But the film quickly leaves that behind and it adds more and more to it. By film's end, I could have sworn I just watched the "Forrest Gump" of the Great Depression. William Wellman basically looked to cover as many social issues as he possibly could in one picture. This watered down the product for me. I did like the performance of stony Richard Barthelmess. He fits this Depression Era. Aline MacMahon and Charley Grapewin are the two I liked most.*

 

You really liked Aline that much? Wow! What did you love about her?

 

*26. State Fair (1933) -- Is this the first family vacation/summer love film? I tend to like such films. And this one is super sweet. You have to like your sweet in heavy dosages, though. For me, it helps that Will Rogers is here. That's the reason I watched the film. And Will spends the entire film fussing over his prize pig, "Blue Boy". Janet Gaynor is actually the star of the film, as she falls for Lew Ayres at the state fair. Her brother (Norman Foster, a future director) also finds his own romance. And then there's Ma (Louise Dresser), who is looking to win the ribbon for best mincemeat and pickles. There's nothing profound about this film. It's purely a sweet family pic.*

 

This one was cute, but I have to say that I liked the Jeanne Crain version a lot more for the music and her presence. The story had a little more to it, as well. It's not at all a film you would go for, but nevertheless, I personally would suggest it over this one.

 

*27. The Tender Trap (1955) -- It's the stars involved in this production that make the film. The story is pretty common, a swinger falls for a sweet girl, but its components are good. Frank Sinatra plays the swinger, of course. He's not too deep in the film, but I always like seeing Frank making the moves. I'm still new to Debbie Reynolds. I prefer her in Susan Slept Here, but she's good here, too. Her and her definite plans. Women! But the stars of the film are David Wayne and Celeste Holm. Wayne is a riot as Frank's mid-life-crisis friend from out of town. And Celeste is attractive as Frank's "steady". I also love all the ladies who walk in and out of Frank's apartment. Miss G is even there! Her name is "Jessica".*

 

I don't know if you would go for many more Debbie movies. After the very few serious roles she did, there are a lot of happy-go-lucky cutesie musicals. But who knows, you may surprise me. You always do! Heehee!

 

And by the way, no picking on MissG today!!

 

*34. Sunrise at Campobello (1960) -- Uh-oh, a biopic. I'm worried! But I actually liked this one. It's about FDR's struggle with his polio-induced paralysis. Ralph Bellamy plays the former president and he does so beautifully. This is Ralph's greatest performance, in my eyes. But as good as Ralph is, I liked Hume Cronyn even more. Hume plays FDR's political adviser, Louis Howe. He brings a touch of everything to the film. Greer Garson plays Eleanor. It's a good role for her... if you can get past the false teeth. The ending is very nice.*

 

Wow! Okay, you surprised me. You actually liked a biopic?!! and one with Greer? Hold the phone!! Heehee! I can't ever get past the teeth or her make-up in this one. It's just too weird to watch her. Grandmama even refuses to watch it, because of her make-up. I found that funny. I loved her performance, but Bellamy stole the movie for me. I love how he keeps a good sense of humor at time while clearly struggling with everything in his life.

 

*35. The Dangerous Passage (1944) -- If you ever wonder how I stumble across no-name cheapies like this, it's because they are included in the public domain DVD collections that I have. I kind of like watching these films for a change of pace. And I usually like them for what they are. This was the case with this film. The story is about a guy (Robert Lowery) who is set to inherit thousands of dollars if he can get from Mexico to Texas... alive. There are some shady folks around who are looking to steal his identity. Phyllis Brooks plays the love interest. The film mostly takes place on a ship, and there is danger all around.*

 

I actually like this one! The story is pretty good and Phyllis Brooks is really pretty. It's lacking a little in the budget area, but I think they pulled it off well, considering.

 

36. Comanche Territory (1950) -- It's Maureen O'Hara! That's all that counts, right? Well, no, not with me. The good news about this film is that Maureen has her "Miss G" moments. She even gets the "McLintock!" treatment, at one point. But the film isn't about her, it's about Jim Bowie (MacDonald Carey) and his helping the Comanches protect their treaty with the U.S. government. Carey isn't the best of heroic leads and this does hold the film back some for me. Will Geer plays his sidekick. He's mostly there for humor's sake, ala Gabby Hayes.

 

This isn't Maureen's strongest performance for me, but all around, it's a good film. She's still feisty!

 

*37. Operator 13 (1934) -- You will have to place modern-day sensibilities to the side when watching this film if you're to enjoy it. You will be cringing through some of it, I'll say that. What I liked most about this Civil War spy pic (women, by the way) was Marion Davies. She's pretty fun in the film... despite the one seriously bad aspect. Surprisingly, Gary Cooper just seems to be around. He doesn't really make that big of an impact. It's a shame, too. I liked the music of the Mills Brothers. What about the story? The concept is great, but the telling ain't the best. I didn't like the ending, at all.*

 

You aren't the only one. I thought the ending was horrible too.

 

*38. Buck Privates (1941) -- A military musical? Nooooooooooooooooooo! This is not the A&C I like! I have learned that Abbott & Costello were nearly secondary in these early films. Here, it's more about the Andrews Sisters and a love triangle. While I do like some of the Andrews Sisters' songs, I was worn out by film's end. It's real trouble when Lee Bowman is who I like the most!*

 

What do you mean, NOOOOOO? You liked the jerk most? Well he got better by the end, but STILL! Heehee! I liked the side story love triangle. I thought it was cute! My favorite parts is when they are in the tent and Abbott tells the story of the ten year old girl to Costello. It's so funny! And the Boxing scene is good too with the cute little boxer shorts and the heart. AWWW!!! So adorable! costello is such a cute fluffy teddy bear!

 

*39. White Zombie (1932) -- I thought this film dragged... a lot. I guess that's what you get when the majority of the characters in the film don't speak! On the bright side, Bela Lugosi is tremendous in the picture. It's a great performance by him. He doesn't have to speak for me to be mesmerized. He's definitely a "silent" actor. What I did like about this film was its message about love. It's pretty sneaky to have such a message in this kind of horror flick. But it really fits.*

 

CREEPYYY!!! :P

 

*40. Tonight and Every Night (1945) -- At least I got to see Rita Hayworth. And I mean see! If you're one to like very colorful musicals, I can see you liking this one. Me, uhhhhhhhhhh... And it's Lee Bowman again! Ugh! I thought Janet Blair was cute, though. Especially in jammies! "You Excite Me".*

 

You're such a male!! :P

 

*Why am I such a completist? The pain!*

 

Because then you can pick on me and MissG when we fast-forward or stop watching something because we can't take it anymore. Because you're soooo mean to us!!

 

*42. Fire Over England (1937) -- A film about the Crown with Laurence Olivier? It's a horror film! And it was. Thank goodness for Vivien Leigh and Flora Robson. Viv is her darling self in a smaller role. At least she's looking to love. Flora plays Queen Elizabeth I and she does so with such warmth. I couldn't believe how human she was. My issue with the film is that it just seems like a lot of "back and forth". We just keep bouncing around with Olivier. I think an espionage film should be more thrilling than that.*

 

It is not a horror film! How could you say that?! :P I'm sticking my tongue out at you! Heehee! You really don't like Olivier, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_Good evening, Silly Goose_ -- *Well at least I'm minty...Heehee!*

 

That is a good thing!

 

*I am NOT snobby! I only stick my nose in the air when you're being highly delusional!*

 

But I'm always on my best behavior!

 

*Oh noooooo!! Visual silence? I can handle that in Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison when noone is talking and trying to survive. That's about it. But it's pretty visuals. It's the same in Out of Africa for me. Pretty visuals with no talking in parts, but there is just WAY too much silence for me in 2001.*

 

I know. And you are in the majority with that. It's not a film for the masses.

 

*Yeah, especially if it was from Xanadu!*

 

I like some songs from *Xanadu* !

 

*I think we've all noticed that, silly goose. We have succeeded in making you a softie romantic. Triumph is wonderful! I think this calls for a tea party!*

 

You succeeded and now you're looking to off me!

 

*Disturbing is the pefrect word for it. What is your favorite part of The Innocents or your favorite thing about it?*

 

I love the atmosphere. It's unsettling.

 

*Naturally you would like them! The good, but bad guys. I liked George O'Brien a lot, but too bad he wasn't one of the three bad men. I kind of associate this one with 3 Godfathers, but I know the stories are nothing alike. That may sound weird.*

 

There are similarities between the two films, for sure. Oddly enough, I love *3 Bad Men* but I don't like *3 Godfathers* .

 

*Which movie are you surprised by?*

 

Nightmare Alley ! That's not "you"!

 

*And I happen to love Marilyn! It's an adventure movie! You should hear SueSue sing "The River of No Return" in person. Heehee! She does quite a good job with CountessDeLave harmonizing.*

 

Now that has to be quite the audio sight!

 

*Well....actually yes she does, but that doesn't mean that's why I love MGM! Grandmama's big genres are musicals, swash buckling, and film noir, believe it or not. Why do you think I love talking about Film Noir? I grew up with it! I love those too!*

 

You're right, I don't believe it for a minute!

 

*Now isn't the time to start admitting your shortcomings! Heehee!*

 

That's good! We would be here all year with me!

 

*Like which ones? Okay so Life Begins is sort of on the weaker side of her pre-codes, but I honestly can't say that I strongly dislike any of them.*

 

I don't like *Born to Be Bad*. But, I do like Loretta a lot in that one.

 

*I love how you talk as if I am always so predictable! :P :p I think I can surprise you on a couple ocassions...okay so the nude scenes in Jean Brodie where the teacher is painting the student bother me a little, but it's the movie as a whole that I like.*

 

Those are the best scenes! :P I wouldn't say you are predictable so much as you do have certain tastes. We all do.

 

*But you can never go wrong with Vanji and Walter!!*

 

Says you!

 

*It's like a less glamorous wanna-be Hitch movie. Heehee!*

 

*When Strangers Marry* is a *Suspicion* -like film. It's not as well done, though.

 

*Oh my goodness... a man ruined by a woman by the end of a film? That's almost every film noir! and what do you mean, "Welcome to film noir"?! What's that suppose to mean?*

 

"Welcome to film noir" is my saying it's classic film noir. "Hi, and welcome to our film noir home. Come in."

 

*Wrong again! Heehee! This is fun! My favorite Rita musical is Pal Joey, followed by Music in My Heart and THEN You Were Never Lovelier. I actually think the other Fred/Rita musical, You'll Never Get Rich, isn't that strong of a musical to me.*

 

What's even crazier is that I actually like *Pal Joey*. It's hard for me to not like a Kim Novak film.

 

*Big surprise! You never believe me! Yet, Mr-I'm-a-softie-now didn't like romance years ago when we all joined here, silly. What if I didn't think that Film Noir wasn't in the realm of my favorite categories until I start chatting with all of you about it all that time ago and now I strongly love all of that I have seen? Then what? :P :p*

 

I would say you're Pinocchio!

 

*OH MY GOSHLY! I can't believe this. I have actually seen some of your top ten! I have seen Sunrise, Phantom, Secrets of a Soul, and Nosferatu*

 

Your having seen *Phantom* and *Secrets of a Soul* is shocking, actually.

 

*I know Destiny is a Lang film and I have seen many of his works. I do have to say that Secrets of a Soul weirded me out to the point of almost turning it off. But you'd be proud of me, I watched it until the very end.*

 

And I'm even more shocked by that! :P

 

*The only reason I saw Nosferatu is because my mother absolutely loves any Vampire/Dracula movie. Because of this, I have developed a like for Vampire movies. They are definitely a guilty pleasure for me now and not something that is normal for me.*

 

I would have not guessed your watching vampire films. That really doesn't seem to be you.

 

*So I like the scenes they are in...They are too cute not to like! But Abbott and Costello PLUS The Andrews Sisters make it two times more wonderful! Hold That Ghost! is my favorite of the movies they are in together.*

 

Troubling! :P

 

*I wasn't really digging the whole pretending to be a black maid thing. I do like the visuals of this film with the soft focus. It makes for a pretty film, but the story is really screwy at times. and I'm the one who usually loves screwy, silly and utterly too cute plots.*

 

That's a good eye you have! The film does feature a good deal of soft focus.

 

*You prefer Aline to Loretta? Is this one of those times you're being sarcastic? Her character or her looks?*

 

Her character.

 

*So does this change your mind about Marlene in particular?*

 

I have always liked Marlene. I just said that I'm not drawn to her physically. It's her romanticism and passion that I like.

 

*I always love Eddie Bracken in anything. He gives a fresh perspective on the more physical side of comedy....like Jack kind of!*

 

:) He's a goober and I do like that about him.

 

*This is just a loverly film all around. I love Irene with William Powell. They make a cute bickering couple who really love each other. Their relationship is kind of manipulative in a way, but a soft, funny kind of way. It's also very refreshing to see William get overthrown by a woman's emotions. Usually he does a bang up job wearing the pants. I mean, he tries here, but doesn't get very far in them. Heehee!*

 

I'll say it's manipulative! Women!

 

*This one really unhinged me. The relationships are sooo disoriented. No wonder you love it! :P :p There is so much to the plot, racism, suicide, lack of loyalty, yes, selfishness, and everything else. It's chaos.*

 

That's excellent! Nicely said! I couldn't believe Bette wanted to keep two-stepping every night. It's like she was in Austin! :P

 

*You, know I wasn't truly intrigued by this one. I don't know if it was Murphy or the plot itself. I always like Duryea's ability to stun an audience no matter the role, but I always see him as the arrogant bad guy in my head. Heehee! He has great presence.*

 

But he was the arrogant bad guy... sort of.

 

*Have you seen The Red Badge of Courage yet? If you like Murphy, you might like this one. It's not one of his westerns, but it's considered one of his great performances. Personally, I sort of fell asleep during it. Ooopsey! :P It's really slow in a lot of parts.*

 

No, not yet. It takes me a while to get to war films. You can also tell that my "guide" isn't into war films, either. :D

 

*I really liked this one!! This is definitely one of my favorite roles of Novak's! It's cute and mysterious at the same time! astaire really surprises me every time I see it. you wouldn't expect him in a role like this, or at least I wouldn't, but he continually shines! I love the sexiness that Kim brings to the forefront.*

 

Look at you! I agree with what you said. I do find the film to be cute. That's why I see it as an "Audrey Hepburn" kind of film.

 

***Spoiler in Paris***

 

*I really liked the combo of Walter and Vanji together! And you are right, Walter's chatacter is very different in this one for this time period, but his later roles sort of resembled the characteristics he displays here. I really wanted to see more of Eva Gabor. I didn't ultimately like what happened to Vanjie and Elizabeth's relationship, but I love the look of pure joy and relief when he sees his daughter at the end. It made me cry!...no laughing at me!*

 

But I teared up, too! You can laugh at me all you want! So Walter plays a lazy socialite fella in other films? I was stunned to find Walter being so irresponsible. He's usually the model of responsibility.

 

Why did you want to see more of Eva?

 

*I still have to see this version. I keep meaning to, but I always miss it. I am really wanting to see it to compare. I have a feeling I will like it a lot more than the Crawford one, but that might be a pre-conceived biased opinion. Heehee!*

 

I provided the YouTube link! Joan is one of your least favorites but you're not big on Ingrid, either. The Hollywood film is much more dramatic, so I'd expect you to like that one more. Even with Joan.

 

*You really liked Aline that much? Wow! What did you love about her?*

 

I liked her unrequited love.

 

*This one was cute, but I have to say that I liked the Jeanne Crain version a lot more for the music and her presence. The story had a little more to it, as well. It's not at all a film you would go for, but nevertheless, I personally would suggest it over this one.*

 

I can believe all of that. I know Jackie really likes that version. But since it's a musical, I'm guessing I'd rather watch Will fussing over "Blue Boy".

 

*I don't know if you would go for many more Debbie movies. After the very few serious roles she did, there are a lot of happy-go-lucky cutesie musicals. But who knows, you may surprise me. You always do! Heehee!*

 

I think your prediction on my not going for many Debbie films is right on target.

 

*And by the way, no picking on MissG today!!*

 

I need to have my fun!

 

*Wow! Okay, you surprised me. You actually liked a biopic?!! and one with Greer? Hold the phone!! Heehee! I can't ever get past the teeth or her make-up in this one. It's just too weird to watch her. Grandmama even refuses to watch it, because of her make-up. I found that funny. I loved her performance, but Bellamy stole the movie for me. I love how he keeps a good sense of humor at time while clearly struggling with everything in his life.*

 

It's definitely Ralph and Hume's film. So your grandma places that much stock on appearances? She's playing Eleanor!

 

*I actually like this one! The story is pretty good and Phyllis Brooks is really pretty. It's lacking a little in the budget area, but I think they pulled it off well, considering.*

 

I cannot believe you have seen *Dangerous Passage* ! I don't even know where you'd run across the film.

 

*This isn't Maureen's strongest performance for me, but all around, it's a good film. She's still feisty!*

 

She's especially feisty at the outset. After that, she settles in. I can't say I go for MacDonald Carey as a hero.

 

*What do you mean, NOOOOOO? You liked the jerk most? Well he got better by the end, but STILL! Heehee! I liked the side story love triangle. I thought it was cute! My favorite parts is when they are in the tent and Abbott tells the story of the ten year old girl to Costello. It's so funny! And the Boxing scene is good too with the cute little boxer shorts and the heart. AWWW!!! So adorable! costello is such a cute fluffy teddy bear!*

 

Yes I liked the jerk the most! We jerks like the other jerks! And "cute and adorable"? Noooooooooooooooooo!

 

*You're such a male!! :P*

 

I'll say!

 

*Because then you can pick on me and MissG when we fast-forward or stop watching something because we can't take it anymore. Because you're soooo mean to us!!*

 

You got me there! I'm into self-torture! I'm watching Greer, after all! :P :p

 

*It is not a horror film! How could you say that?! :P I'm sticking my tongue out at you! Heehee! You really don't like Olivier, do you?*

 

:P I only like Olivier in *Miss Goddess Is Missing*. I need to watch *Clash of the Titans* again now that I actually know who Olivier is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_Good evening, Quiet Gal_ -- *To be honest.. for all my "black and white" ways.. I DO also have compassion for some of the "black" or even the "Grey" characters in stories where they get caught in those sticky moments and can't get out of trouble.. or when the "ax" falls for them (either literally or figuratively) . I may agree that they got what they deserve.. ha.. but I might still feel sorry for them anyway. I just depends on the issue at hand. Some "bad guys" can be very sympathetic.. but there are others, where you just have to cheer when they finally get what's coming.*

 

You are right, sometimes we do have sympathy for those who have done bad. It often depends on their circumstances and it also has to do with our own personal experiences and feelings. Some characters and situations are going to strike a stronger chord with us.

 

*For Jean.. when she finally got hers.. ha.. I almost gave it a standing ovation, :)*

 

:D That's great!

 

*Ok.. she is a damaged soul. But she CAUSES damage too.. and to young children. That is just too hard for me to overlook, ha. (I am not kidding.. I got very defensive for those girls.. it really took me by surprise)*

 

That's correct. But I can still feel for someone who has caused damage.

 

*She was fun and flamboyant.. almost 'other-worldly".. at least to a bunch of impressionable young children. She had them more or less captivated by her beauty and her elegance. She was like a living "fashion model" to them.. someone you only see or read about in a magazine. Only here she was for real, telling them how to think, how to act, what to do if they wanted to be as wonderful as SHE was.*

 

That's for sure. She was sharply drawn. She stands out like a sore thumb. And she does seem otherworldly. I love Miss G's saying she's an "actress". That's precisely it. The world is her stage.

 

*Possibly.. but other than the men, perhaps.. I did not seem them making choices that were hurting the students.. they were not being selfish on the same level as she was, and not in the way that she was. They just wanted to maintain the status quo.. mostly. Perhaps they were a little bit jealous of Jean too. (maybe?) But again.. I don't think they were going about doing things (directly or indirectly) that were causing harm. (other than the art teacher.. ugh.. did I mention how hideous I thought HE was, ha)*

 

No, you are right. "Harm" is too strong of a word. I think the other faculty members are suppressing the girls. I can't that's truly harming them. It's only making them less of a person.

 

*That is one of those movies I have to confess I have avoided over the years. (ha.. I think overall I am not a huge Tennessee Williams kinda gal.. all that shouting.. and everyone cutting each other to pieces.. that is how I always PERCEIVE his stories. I could be wrong) but if that were not enough.. I am NO huge Brando fan either. So it is likely a double whammy for me, ha.*

 

It's as Miss G describes: you would love to hate it. It's the kind of film you'd have a lot to talk about. But most of it would stem from your anger and disgust. You would absolutely despise Brando's "Stanley". "Blanche" would drive you nuts. And you would go off on "Stella" for her one major failing. You may like Mitch (Karl Malden) to a degree. But he also has issues. Basically, Tennessee Williams' plays are about seriously-flawed people. There's a ton of weakness to be found, something you'd really hate. But as Miss G points out, Williams makes them all very human. I'm kind of surprised Miss G likes some of his works because his worlds are often very "ugly".

 

*And see, I look at it from a completely opposite point of view. I don't think parents get enough say, most of the time, in what their kids are being taught. I guess it is all in your perspective. But I don't think that is a good road to go down right now.. ha. So I will leave that alone for another day (one mudfight at a time, don't you know. ha) :)*

 

I have two teachers in my family and I know what they face on a consistent basis with parents. It only takes one or two to make the school board cower. It's a much different world today. In the past, schools were entrusted. Not anymore. Parents today think they have all the answers and they are always right. Everything has reversed.

 

*Hmmm. I don't know that I would agree completely. I think you are right in that he did draw pretty sharp lines between Jean and the "old school" faculty members. But I don't think they were as strong as "alive" and "dead" Because I think those old gals had a lot of life left in them.. and showed it more than once. I think they were just more or less portrayed as you mentioned earlier.. very conservative vs very liberal. Or perhaps very "old school' and very "modern" in the way they thought, acted, and dressed. The other faculty (with the exception of the art teacher, of course) really seemed to embrace the "old ways" as the "best way"*

 

But you can see by the dress of the faculty and students the filmmaker is suggesting they are boring, unimaginative, even "dead". Jean is wearing vibrant colors, which means alive. You get the idea that the other teachers are just going through the motions as they have always done. There's nothing new with them.

 

*And I will take a side not here to just add that maybe that is not TRUE entirely.. (because they may not be the best way if something new comes along that is better) but it is not wrong entirely either. Sometimes you have to find a middle ground. Just because something is "old and traditional" doesn't make it invalid or dead.*

 

I certainly agree with you. But I think what we're being shown is shorthand for "dead" and "alive". Again, I'm not speaking in literal terms. The faculty is breathing, after all.

 

*OH "cult" is a perfect word. I agree that is just what it was too. They really were her "followers" even if they did not exactly embrace all her teachings in the same way. They were all influenced by her (to the extreme) in their own way.*

 

That's correct. That's always the fear of any kind of teaching or parenting. You don't want to produce a mindless follower who cannot think for themselves.

 

*Ha.. and I can understand that. It goes back to what I was saying earlier.. just because something is "old" it doesn't make it invaluable.. just unpopular, perhaps. Look at the movies we watch here.. most "young" people.. kids especially don't give them a second thought. They can't even stand the THOUGHT of watching an "old movie' or a black and white movie.. and HEAVEN forbid.. a SILENT movie.*

 

Everyone is so different. What stimulates one person is not going to do so with another. I can talk to Miss G about Marilyn Monroe and she's going to be interested, but you're not going to be. I can talk to you about some kid's film today and now Miss G is zoning out. I could even dress it all up and it still may not interest either of you.

 

*And ha.. here is the REALLY funny coincidence.. even as I type this, the junior high unit from the scout troop I am with is having a slumber party tonight at one of the unit leader's homes. so they can watch a silent movie. (NO kidding) They are earning their cinematography badge and watching a silent is of the requirements. And the leader for that unit is not even ALL that much younger than I am. I think she just turned 40 maybe... and SHE had not ever seen a silent movie herself.. so she did not have any idea what one to choose for them to watch or where to find one.. ha. NO I am not kidding and I am not making this up.. ha.*

 

That's interesting!

 

*So she came to me and asked me what I would recommend and I told her they should see Chaplin's The Gold Rush (because I figured it had comedy.. romance.. even some action. ha.. all the right "mix" for Jr. High age kids)*

 

I've yet to watch that one but I know you and your daughter like it, so that's a good starting place.

 

*So I am looking forward to hearing what they all thought. I just watched it earlier tonight myself so I can have it fresh in my mind the next troop meeting so I can ask them about it. I really do hope at least some of the girls enjoyed it.(but having said that.. ha.. I won't get my hopes up TOO high.. those "old dead silent movies ARE out of date and "uncool", don't ya know, ha) :D*

 

There's always one or two who can appreciate the humor or romance, even if it's really old. I remember watching the Three Stooges with my cousin's boys and they both died laughing at it.

 

But I can't talk too loudly. I didn't get into classic film until the late-90s. I used to scoff at it. Black and white? That's stupid! I hated that all the guys wore suits. I couldn't relate to that. I wanted to find myself in the film. Well, now I'm older and I can find myself in these films. I'm in many of these films.

 

*Ha.. I do. (maybe that is why I am trying to defend them as NOT being dead. ha. How unhappy would I be if someone said that about ME. :D I would just have to reach out and kick them or something and say, ha.. Does THAT feel dead to YOU?? :D (ha. you really should not have given me that word "dead" ha.. I am just milking it for all it is worth, now) :D:P*

 

I don't see you as being dead! I think you have too much energy and spirit, and I'm sure you project that with the girls. But the faculty at Marcia Blaine sure doesn't exhibit much energy and spirit.

 

*But all kidding aside.. that is why I think she was such a waste as a teacher. She did not WANT her kids to think for themselves. She only wanted them to think what SHE thought. (the question about the painting was a perfect example.. when she asks something like who was the best or most important Italian artist in history, and one girl answers Michaelangelo and she says NO and tells them it is HER favorite artist instead (I can't remember who it was) They were not allowed to think critically or individually.. they were just allowed think what she wanted them to, and nothing more.*

 

And that's why I'm not completely on Miss Brodie's side. Her girls are purely an audience for her theatrics.

 

*I think you are right. She was smarter (and in a lot of ways, stronger) than her teacher and more or less saw everything that she was doing and pretty much just capitalized on it. At least as she got older, anyway. She may not have started out to be as harsh as she ended up.. but she ended up that way, none the less.*

 

I find Sandy to be spiteful. And, to me, I think those who are spiteful are weak. Sandy came to hate Jean. She hated the spell she placed on her. Sandy felt betrayed, herself. So she matched that betrayal with her own. I also feel that Sandy is envious of Jean because she can never be a "Jean". That burns her in a way. Women tend to hate certain types of women they can never be. There is a hidden envy and spite with this.

 

*Those were just symptoms of the problem. The real issue was that she took her "personal" life and made it the curriculum. Everything they studied was a lesson in Brodie... what to think, how to act, who to like (or love) and why. Close-minded doesn't even begin to cover it.*

 

And that is true. But I do think we all bring our personal lives into our teaching in some way. It's just that with Jean it dominates her teachings.

 

*I think that if she had just used her 'powers" for good instead of evil ha. (in terms of the influence she had over the girls) she could have made a MARVELOUS teacher, just for the reason you say. It COULD have been a whole other movie.. especially if she other faculty were presented as you say "dead" and cruel even... and then along comes this free spirit to break them all out of the mold of the cold, dark, girls school way of life and add a splash of color to their wardrobes while she's at it. ha.*

 

And I wouldn't have liked that film nearly as much! It's *Mary Poppins* !

 

*Well.. I do agree that a llarge part of teaching IS (or should be) about inspiring your students to learn.. but then you still have to TEACH them something valuable once they are inspired. I think Miss Mackay said it best.. (something like) "Culture cannot compensate for a lack of hard knowledge"*

 

A mix of the two is best. We are being shown the two extremes in the film.

 

*And see.. I agree with that one hundred percent. (and that is why I DO have such a hard time with Miss Brodie) She was instilling very harmful ideas (and ideals) in all those girls. (sometimes directly even, and very intentionally) And yet I don't think she had a clue (or even cared) that what she was doing was at all the wrong thing to do.*

 

She wanted them to be free and alive but that can be dangerous for the majority. Only a few can really handle such ideas. But Miss Brodie is truly living in her fantasy world. She's a living painting, a breathing novel. Art captures all kinds of life, the good and the bad, the helpful and the harmful. Art can be truthful lies.

 

If you and Jackie were in Miss Brodie's class, you would be rolling your eyes and Jackie would be inspired. That's your personalities. You are weeding in the garden and Jackie is dreaming in the meadow.

 

*Ha.. that to me is like saying that it could be valuable if she taught them to put their hand on the hot burner of the stove.. just so they could learn later in life they would get burned.*

 

:D

 

*No.. it isn't all black and white, you are right. And that is where the "gray" comes in, for certain. However.. I think many teachers (especially those in institutions of higher learning.. high school and college) take way too much on themselves to "un-teach" parental values that their students learned at home. .*

 

That's a common conservative fear. But at those ages, I feel children are now young adults and should be able to think for themselves. What has been taught in the home is either accepted or not by the young adult. Sometimes a young adult rejects the teachings only to accept them as they mature. Some just march in line as their parents wish. Others are going to rebel.

 

You will find many parents fearing their child thinking and believing differently than them. I've always told myself that I'd be proud of that. I'd want them to find who they are, not who I am. This is where vanity really shows up for parents.

 

*As in: How "intolerant' of you to say that there are moral standards that are always true or not true. Or "How "STUPID" you must be if you hold to "traditional" values these days" etc, etc. Intellectual intimidation to me is one of the worst forms of bullying.. and it happens a LOT to kids who come from more conservative backgrounds when they try to speak from that point of view in a lot of schools these days.. but again.. I won't go much further than that, because I don't think that is the mud fight I want to have with anyone here right now. ha. :)*

 

I do believe conservative beliefs are usually scoffed at colleges and universities. I don't feel that's fair. That's where liberals get to thinking much too highly of their own beliefs and ideals.

 

We Americans drag our feet with progress but we usually get there. It just takes time. And every generation gripes about how the country is going to pot because their views start to become the minority view.

 

How my grandma thinks is slightly different to her kids. How I think is different to my parents. And I'm sure how my niece thinks will be different than me. And who is right? We all the know answer to that. We always choose ourselves. Again, this is the vanity I speak of.

 

I'll give you an example of such change. My mom still says "colored" for African-Americans. Even my grandma doesn't do that. My cousin's ex-husband, who just turned 50, also says "colored". I can't even imagine this. Times change. America changes... slowly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_Ciao, Blanche_ -- *I know I've sounded harsh about her, but in fact I understand her perfectly as I've almost always been the perfect 'actress' in my own life. The difference is I don't care about influencing others to think like me. I do tend to chase rainbows like Jean, to exalt art because I can identify with people in it more than with people in real life, and like Blanche, I prefer a Chinese Lantern to a bare bulb.*

 

:)

 

*I just knew you'd love this movie. I personally do not like it, it's the kind of story that annoys me.*

 

What annoys you about stories such as the one in *The Blue Angel* ? I can see you not liking the film because it's an "ugly" film.

 

*Eddie Bracken is a stumbling block for me. I find him too annoying to enjoy the films. I also rarely like "sap" movies.*

 

Film noir is full of saps! When Robert Mitchum is a sap, that's all right. You don't like weak saps.

 

Eddie is also a goober. That's never going to work with you.

 

*I never thought about the sit-com aspect at all! It's a childhood favorite. Powell is absolutely brilliant, it's such a different character for him and Irene is superb. I love how she gets her way, every time.*

 

You certainly wouldn't take the long way around like Vinnie (Irene Dunne) does!

 

*I'm not sure I've ever seen it. The title is the same as a play in which Spencer Tracy appeared. John Ford saw him in it and encouraged him to head to Hollywood.*

 

And he cast him!

 

*While he can be "too much" at times, I've always avowed Rooney is a brilliant dramatic actor.*

 

It may have been before this film that either Robert Osborne or Ben Mankiewicz mentioned some big star saying Mickey Rooney was one of the two greatest actors of all. That really surprised me. I think he was mentioned with Laurence Olivier.

 

*You are so unpredictable! I figured you would have loathed Bette and the whole thing.*

 

You know, I think my issue with Bette is when she's power-tripping too much. I love it when she's being selfish in love.

 

*It is entertaining and the Charles Coburn twist is what really bends one's mind. This and his doctor in King's Row really show what an outstanding actor he was.*

 

I forgot about that character and performance! That was also an eye-opener for me. But I think he tops that in *In This Our Life*. And I love Coburn. He's a joy to watch.

 

*His face is "baby", isn't it? But there is a coldness to his eyes that I suppose comes from his war experiences (and being from Texas). This lends that note of authenticity.*

 

And being from Texas? :D

 

*I'm happy that his westerns have seen a resurgence in popularity and availability on DVD. He tends to have always lurked in the shadows of Wayne, Stewart, et al, mostly because he didn't work with too many A-list directors.*

 

That's a great point. I'm very glad he has been given DVD releases, such as the TCM collection of his. His stature reminds me of Alan Ladd. Alan seems more distant and darker, though.

 

*I've only seen parts of this and didn't care much for it. You are going to have to explain where the "Audrey Hepburn" comparison comes in. I can't imagine anything less like Audrey...*

 

It's a charming mystery comedy with misunderstandings. There's also a sophistication to the film. Fred Astaire brings this to the film, for sure. The film is also on the "cute" side not the sexy side, which is where Kim Novak is often found. You may not think it's an "Audrey" film because Jack Lemmon is the male lead. He's not Gary Cooper or William Holden or Cary Grant or Peter O'Toole.

 

*I swear this scenario was used in either "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" or "The Twilight Zone", but with male characters instead of female. I'm very curious to see this film.*

 

You are right, there is something similar in an early Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode.

 

I think you'd find *Thunder on the Hill* to be okay. You won't be raving about it.

 

*I have to see this one! I can't believe Jim and Dennis appeared in a western before "Gunsmoke". And that picture of Jim holding a lamby is too cute for words!*

 

James Arness is playing a lovable oaf who is happy to be back home to enjoy the simple joys of life, such as taking care of lambies. He finds himself involved in the climax, too.

 

*I love Ryan in western garb. He's so sexy.*

 

:D I thought you were going to comment on Raymond!

 

*The "noirish" style, and the incongruous casting of Kim Hunter, Dean Jagger and Robert Mitchum was enough for me to enjoy it, if it wasn't "all that". Dean Jagger rarely got to play anyone like this, I mean almost a "leading man" type. You never see him with a woman in a movie. He's sexless, usually.*

 

And he's sexless here, too! His scenes with Kim felt forced.

 

*This one is too much for me, I never cared for the vulgarity of seeing Garbo dancing lewdly. Now, this "silent passion" you speak of I do appreciate MUCH more in some of her others silents, especially Wild Orchids.*

 

How can one not like the vulgarity and lewdness of her dance?! Wasn't that ballet? :P :p

 

*I'm not like that! I can't believe you like Frank as a "swinger". I'm not as crazy about those roles. I prefer him more serious. But he looks great in orange. :D*

 

How could I not like him as a swinger?!

 

I like Frank in most anything. Well, with the great exception of *The Pride and the Passion*. And, I must say, I'm worried about his "teeny-bopper" pics.

 

*David Wayne and Celeste are excellent.*

 

They really are. And I had not liked David until I saw his performance here.

 

*Though it's been some time since I watched it, I felt as you do---it's a fun film and Marlene totally surprised me that she could pull off such a role.*

 

And Ray! I wonder if he felt ridiculous throughout the production.

 

*Rogers and Twain are a match made in heaven, but they would have needed a John Ford and a Nichols/Trotti screewriting team to do them justice.*

 

I wonder if Ford would have made such a fantasy film. That seems to be out of his element. Or am I missing something?

 

*I agree about the ending, but I enjoyed it probably more than most. Love Ed in noirs.*

 

I do like Edmond in film noir, but this one was the weakest of his that I've seen. At least that I'm remembering.

 

*I didn't care for it either. I'm not a fan of Rita's musicals, aside from the Astaire ones and Pal Joey. Yet I love her dancing, she was one of the best.*

 

It looks like she was dubbed in *Tonight and Every Night*. But she really can dance. I'm curious to see Rita with Fred. I can't even picture anyone with him other than Ginger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Brother Orchid (1940) -- Now this is kind my kind of "Angels with Dirty Faces". I do like the sub-genre of gangster comedy and Edward G. Robinson did it the best. He's sensational playing "Brother Orchid." Some of the things he says and does in this film had me laughing. But you not only get Eddie G., you also get Humphrey Bogart as his adversary and Ann Sothern as his moll. Both are terrific. And then there's Ralph Bellamy, playing a good ole boy. Now that is worth seeing!*

 

It was worth seeing, not only Ralph, but Eddie, Bogie, Ann, Alan (Jenkins), Donald (Crisp), did I forget anybody! Quite a nice gathering for this one. This was entertaining. Jenkins' malapropisms right of the bat set the tone. I was aware but had forgotten what movie it was where Ann Southern sat at a table and played this little drunk scene on the telephone. I had seen that before in some movie and have wanted to find it. Well, this was the movie. Only I hadn't realized that she wasn?t really drunk, she was feigning. No matter, she certainly did it well. She was so attractive, and she did that sort of dizzy characterization with the slightly dumb-blonde speech well too. Another one these loyal to the end good girls. Eddie does the good-guy and the bad-guy stuff in the same movie. Yes, it?s difficult to think that Johnny Sarto is going to remain with the fellowship but since this is a comedy we don?t have to worry about it. Sometimes I get weird and think it might be nice to be like those guys, no problems and being peaceful all the time. Donald Crisp played that to a tee. Good luck, Johnny, I don?t know how you?re going to do it.

 

Frank, there are 12 or 13 of your latest sheet (your reviews were longer than the ones on the previous list and fun to read) that are on Netflix and I?m going to try to watch a few and then post. I still want to post on Cesar but have been busy and unable to sit down to it. Also, I took Miss Greer?s mention and actually watched Cutthroat Island. Yike, I haven't seen a movie like that for awhile! I got through it though and was even entertained here and there. Never would have selected that for myself (and probably for good reason :) )

 

Frank, what do you mean by ?public domain? DVDs? Is that library or netflix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there, Mr. Grey,

 

I enjoyed reading your comments on your latest list. I really look forward to that because it helps me get a feel for why (or why not) a film got rated as high or low for you.

 

3. Life with Father

 

You have NO idea how surprised I was to see you rate this one so high. ha. I am glad you enjoyed it. And I can (sort of) see the Archie Bunker angle..ha.. but I am not sure I can stretch FAR enough to see Homer Simpson.. ha. I just liked the way he more or less got led into wife's way of thinking every so often.. even while he was spouting off all his own objections. It was a fun character for Powell to play.

 

6. Hobson's Choice (1954) Now this is a film that Quiet Gal would go for

 

I have seen this one.. a few years ago. I don't remember as much of it as I WISH I did to be able to comment much but I DO remember liking it. I have really enjoyed getting to see Laughton in a variety of roles and settings over the years. I will have to look for this one again, if only just to jog my memory sometime.

 

And although I can't recall it as much as I WISH I could (in order to be able to talk much) I was surprised to see you rate State Fair as low as you did.. it really had some fun moments in it (at least between the mom and the dad). Wish it had not been so long since I saw it so I could comment more.

 

And I have also seen The Tender Trap and A Connecticut Yankee. (though again.. not recently.. ha. You are making me reach back too far into the dark recesses of my far-too-cluttered memory banks to say very MUCH about them.. but I think I likely enjoyed them more than you did.. I think.

 

From your list.. The ones I have not seen but am really interested in would be:

 

12. Thunder on the Hill (1951

19. Horizons West (1952

25. Heroes for Sale

36. Comanche Territory (1950

 

Any others you think I should be on the look-out for??

 

Meanwhile.. back to Miss Brodie:

 

I can't that's truly harming them. It's only making them less of a person

 

I don't think we see them the same way.. because I don't even think "less of a person" is a fair way to look at it. ha. I think they just had a different perspective on what a quality education looked like (and their methods were maybe rooted more in time-honored traditions of teaching that were becoming outdated.. but the education itself was not.) But I can see how others might not agree.. we all have our own thoughts and opinions on the matter.

 

It's as Miss G describes: you would love to hate it

 

Ha.. I do sometimes enjoy a good "ticked off" feeling from a movie now and then. So anything is possible. I may have to see about it sometime, if only to satisfy my curiosity now.

 

I have two teachers in my family and I know what they face on a consistent basis with parents. It only takes one or two to make the school board cower. It's a much different world today. In the past, schools were entrusted. Not anymore. Parents today think they have all the answers and they are always right. Everything has reversed

 

I do see a lot of what you are saying.. but as a parent, I also see the other side. I have worked pretty closely with some VERY good teachers over the years and have witnessed some of what you are saying. But I have also seen some not-so-good teachers and the effects their teaching has had on entire classrooms of children. So there are times when a parent really does need to have more say. It is not so easy to "entrust" your most valued treasure into the hands of just anyone that comes along with a teaching degree. And the word "professional" (as it applies to teachers) doesn't always have the same meaning in one arena that it does in another. School districts, individual schools.. and even individual teachers within each school really do come on a case by case basis these days. At least that has been my experience.

 

At any rate, I think it is a parents obligation to their children to make certain that the education they receive is going to be the one they deserve to have... and not just one that they end up with because of the luck of the draw (based on what school and/or teacher they end up with)

 

But you can see by the dress of the faculty and students the filmmaker is suggesting they are boring, unimaginative, even "dead". Jean is wearing vibrant colors, which means alive. You get the idea that the other teachers are just going through the motions as they have always done. There's nothing new with them

 

I certainly agree with you. But I think what we're being shown is shorthand for "dead" and "alive". Again, I'm not speaking in literal terms. The faculty is breathing, after all

 

You may be right. It could well be that this was his intent in the way they are written and presented.. I just did not see them that way. (maybe because I was on their side more than hers, ha) :D

 

That's correct. That's always the fear of any kind of teaching or parenting. You don't want to produce a mindless follower who cannot think for themselves

 

Any good teaching (that is of real value) will produce the ability to think and reason for one's self. But having said that.. you have to show a child HOW to do that.. by giving them parameters and reasons. It is not enough to say 1+1=2 if you can't show them the value of what "1" is.. and it is not enough to say this is what is right.. or this is what is wrong.. unless you can show them the value of THAT sort of thinking too. And then when they are old enough.. they can think and reason their way through more complicated problems (the mathematical and the moral ones alike)

 

I've yet to watch that one but I know you and your daughter like it, so that's a good starting place

 

It is a family favorite to be sure. One thing I can say about Chaplin is how much I enjoy the way he can crack you up and break your heart ALL at the same time. He comes through with this story in every way that I enjoy. It is just one that I always think of first for him.

 

There's always one or two who can appreciate the humor or romance, even if it's really old. I remember watching the Three Stooges with my cousin's boys and they both died laughing at it

 

WELL... I am happy (and a bit proud of myself, ha) to report that they ALL loved it. I heard back from parent after parent how much they all enjoyed it. That whole slumber party (and the various different badge requirements they worked on that night) ended up being one of the most fun events that unit had all year. It was a huge success. (ha.. score one for whacky old "Mrs. Ro" and her nerdy old "silent movie") :D

 

Well, now I'm older and I can find myself in these films. I'm in many of these films

 

Well yes you are, Harry Fabian.. I mean Jabez.. I mean Bud.. Um.. I mean "Difficult Boy" :P:P HA!

 

I don't see you as being dead! I think you have too much energy and spirit, and I'm sure you project that with the girls. But the faculty at Marcia Blaine sure doesn't exhibit much energy and spirit

 

I think they did more than you realize. But it is all in how you PERCEIVE such things. They were presented as being silly and outdated for the most part. You were supposed to look down on them (and yes.. ok.. perhaps even consider them.. or their ways "dead" but that is really just a matter of your point of view on what it was they were teaching (and the way in which they taught)

 

And thanks for saying that you don't see ME that way.. ha. as old fashioned and "quaint" or un-important as some of my points of view may be, to me they are just as alive and valuable... and needed in our society as much of what a lot of more "modern" thinkers may believe.

 

And that is true. But I do think we all bring our personal lives into our teaching in some way. It's just that with Jean it dominates her teachings

 

It did not just dominate her teaching.. it WAS her teaching. I think I mentioned it before, but she really was her own "curriculum" She was her own private school within the school.

 

And I wouldn't have liked that film nearly as much! It's Mary Poppins

 

Well no.. I wasn't exactly seeing it THAT way.. ha. But I have seen other films of this "genre" that had a much different spin on the REASON the teacher sort set up his or her own "school" within a school. This is one of the few where I can honestly say in NO way was I at all on the teacher's side of things.

 

She wanted them to be free and alive but that can be dangerous for the majority

 

Oh I did not see that at all. She wanted them to be like her.. or be who SHE thought they should be. (the drama queen, or the one who go on to have her portrait painted, etc,) She had their roles all hand-picked for them. They were free.. and she didn't want them to be. She wanted to mold them into her own pre-defined roles.. or at least she wanted to mold their minds so they would all think like SHE did (because her way to think was the only right way) At least that is how I saw it.

 

If you and Jackie were in Miss Brodie's class, you would be rolling your eyes and Jackie would be inspired. That's your personalities. You are weeding in the garden and Jackie is dreaming in the meadow

 

Ha. maybe. I am not TOO fond of weeding altogether (literally of figuratively, ha) So it may surprise you to know I have done my share of dreaming out there in the meadow along with her, now and then too. But it is what value we place on the dreaming that may be different. I do have a far to practical take on that subject I know. In fact.. it is likely a case where I can be TOO practical for my own good, I confess. So after I got up from dreaming in the meadow.. ha.. I WOULD have to go get my rake, I suppose. ha. :D

 

And yes.. I agree.. I WOULD roll my eyes at Miss Brodie and probably have something to say BACK to her too, if I had half a chance, ha. (Never let it be said that I am a good "silent sufferer") :D

 

That's a common conservative fear

 

I don't think "conservative" has anything to do with it.. I just think it is a matter where parents do have the right (and again.. the obligation) to teach their children basic common moral concepts that should not be denigrated by those in positions of authority in the education system.

 

But at those ages, I feel children are now young adults and should be able to think for themselves

 

Some of the girls in that classroom (at least the ones they showed in the WHOLE class... not just the small group) were pretty young. Not teenagers yet. Those were not "young adults" and they were very (very) impressionable.

 

What has been taught in the home is either accepted or not by the young adult. Sometimes a young adult rejects the teachings only to accept them as they mature. Some just march in line as their parents wish. Others are going to rebel

 

This has always been true since the dawn of time.

 

You will find many parents fearing their child thinking and believing differently than them. I've always told myself that I'd be proud of that. I'd want them to find who they are, not who I am. This is where vanity really shows up for parents

 

Maybe it is somewhat a case of "vanity" for some parents. But I am not talking about likes and dislikes and preferences. (I don't care what sort of movies or music or sports team my child grows up to enjoy or dislike, etc.. but I DO confess I enjoy it if she does like some of the same things I do, ha.. so yeah.. that might be vanity) And I know.. so many parents get caught up in producing "mini-me" of themselves in that regard just because that is what they WANT their child to be like.. but what I am saying goes deeper than vanity.

 

Because to me, it is not vanity to teach your child moral principals that you believe they need to learn so they can live and prosper and make sound choices later in life. It is just good parenting. It is just as you mentioned earlier.. some kids WILL adopt their parents ideals, some will not. But it is no one's right but the parent's to say what those ideals and morals SHOULD be for your child. (until the child is old enough to say for himself)

 

And I can almost hear you saying.. well what if a parent teaches a child things that are harmful in the name of "moral concepts". Well.. I could ask the same question about what if the SCHOOL teaches that?? I guess in the end, society DOES have a way of working that all out as well. Because, for example, if I teach my child that certain behaviors and attitudes are the RIGHT way (or the WRONG way) to think or behave, etc.. and they go on to adopt those ideals for themselves as they grow older (or to ignore them, as they see fit) they will end up facing either the social, ethical or legal consequences of that sort of decision later in life. (because if I did my job right.. they WILL be able to think for themselves whehter that really IS the moral compass they want to travel by or not) And the reverse is true as well.. if I did NOT do my job well.. they will likely not know HOW to think unless someone tells them)

 

So the thing that I find disturbing is that there are some in our society perhaps that think parents shouldn't burden a child any sort of "moral" concept either way, and just let them choose for themselves someday what to think or how to act (either based on experience.. or popular opinion.. or whatever the "winds of change" may blow their way) But in the meantime, I am left wondering, how CAN they think for themselves.. or even decide what is right or wrong if they have never been taught?

 

To me, it would be doing your child the worst sort of injustice to leave them with no moral underpinning to work off of that way.

 

We Americans drag our feet with progress but we usually get there. It just takes time. And every generation gripes about how the country is going to pot because their views start to become the minority view

 

How my grandma thinks is slightly different to her kids. How I think is different to my parents. And I'm sure how my niece thinks will be different than me. And who is right? We all the know answer to that. We always choose ourselves. Again, this is the vanity I speak of

 

Well again.. I don't call it "vanity" to want your child to adopt moral principles that you feel truly ARE the right way to live.. but at the same time, I do agree that there is something to what you say. There are things we can do and accomplish NOW that most people never dreamed of back in the day. But when it comes to right and wrong.. don't you think it was ALWAYS wrong for a parent to pass down concepts of racial discrimination.. even in the way they describe a person's ethnicity? (as in the use of the word "colored" that you mentioned.. or even far WORSE words that were often used, back in the day)

 

Vanity doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it was the right thing to do to teach your children that we are all valuable people regardless of our race, (or that we all have a right to be treated fairly, so we should treat others as we'd have them treat us). Some things are about "vanity" (if you are talking about parents who want to dictate.. or have overt influence over what their kid likes to do.. or how they dress.. or where they go to college, or whether they are interested in the same things you are as they grow up, etc) but SOME things are really just right or wrong. Teaching your child the moral concepts you believe are of value to them to adopt in society as they grow up is not a "vain" thing so much as it is just what parents have the right (and again.. at the risk of repeating myself) the obligation to do.

 

And YES.. we can do damage to them (and others) if we teach them the wrong things.. OR if we don't teach them at all. So in the end, we must strive to teach our children well. (ha.. sounds like the line to SONG, now doesn't it??) :) And at the end of the day, (and this may only be what I believe personally so take it or leave it, but) I believe ultimately we will answer to God for what we did or did not teach them.

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Mar 15, 2014 6:18 PM

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Mar 15, 2014 6:28 PM

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Mar 15, 2014 6:44 PM

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Mar 16, 2014 12:14 AM (because, well.. I keep finding REASONS to edit. Evidently, I am getting pretty sloppy in my old age.) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_Howdy, Ma Stone_ -- *You have NO idea how surprised I was to see you rate this one so high. ha. I am glad you enjoyed it. And I can (sort of) see the Archie Bunker angle..ha.. but I am not sure I can stretch FAR enough to see Homer Simpson.. ha. I just liked the way he more or less got led into wife's way of thinking every so often.. even while he was spouting off all his own objections. It was a fun character for Powell to play.*

 

It was a great role for Powell. He really got to take charge of the screen.

 

Powell exclaims the "d'oh" that Homer is known for. Also, Marge often seems like the weaker of the two yet she finds ways to push Homer in a direction. The Simpsons have often featured Homer's issues with church and Marge's commitment to church.

 

*And although I can't recall it as much as I WISH I could (in order to be able to talk much) I was surprised to see you rate State Fair as low as you did.. it really had some fun moments in it (at least between the mom and the dad). Wish it had not been so long since I saw it so I could comment more.*

 

I enjoyed the film but it's not the kind of film that is going to rate very high with me. It's much too sweet and the story isn't that involving.

 

*And I have also seen The Tender Trap and A Connecticut Yankee. (though again.. not recently.. ha. You are making me reach back too far into the dark recesses of my far-too-cluttered memory banks to say very MUCH about them.. but I think I likely enjoyed them more than you did.. I think.*

 

You liked *The Tender Trap* ?! That shocks me!

 

*From your list.. The ones I have not seen but am really interested in would be:*

 

*12. Thunder on the Hill (1951*

*19. Horizons West (1952*

*25. Heroes for Sale*

*36. Comanche Territory (1950*

 

*Any others you think I should be on the look-out for??*

 

I'd say *Thunder on the Hill* is one you'd enjoy. You would be entertained by *Split Second*. I believe you'd like the "Maisie" films. I think you'd really appreciate *The Unknown Man*. You'd get a kick out of *In This Our Life*. I believe you'd like *Hail the Conquering Hero*.

 

*I don't think we see them the same way.. because I don't even think "less of a person" is a fair way to look at it. ha. I think they just had a different perspective on what a quality education looked like (and their methods were maybe rooted more in time-honored traditions of teaching that were becoming outdated.. but the education itself was not.) But I can see how others might not agree.. we all have our own thoughts and opinions on the matter.*

 

I believe when you eliminate feelings and personality from anything in life, you make someone less of a person. This is the suppression I speak with the teaching at Marcia Blaine. No, I don't believe in anarchy. I do believe there needs to be parameters. It's just the school's parameters are so lifeless.

 

*Ha.. I do sometimes enjoy a good "ticked off" feeling from a movie now and then. So anything is possible. I may have to see about it sometime, if only to satisfy my curiosity now.*

 

That's all *A Streetcar Named Desire* would do for you.

 

*I do see a lot of what you are saying.. but as a parent, I also see the other side. I have worked pretty closely with some VERY good teachers over the years and have witnessed some of what you are saying. But I have also seen some not-so-good teachers and the effects their teaching has had on entire classrooms of children. So there are times when a parent really does need to have more say. It is not so easy to "entrust" your most valued treasure into the hands of just anyone that comes along with a teaching degree. And the word "professional" (as it applies to teachers) doesn't always have the same meaning in one arena that it does in another. School districts, individual schools.. and even individual teachers within each school really do come on a case by case basis these days. At least that has been my experience.*

 

I don't believe in micro-managing a child's life. I feel they need their own space to become a person. When I was in school, like everyone else, there were good teachers and not-so-good teachers. But that's how it is in life. We're not all going to have good bosses and co-workers and neighbors and customers. We can't have mom and dad come in and attempt to remove all the bad for us. We have to learn to handle these things on our own.

 

Today, it's a parent's ego that is completely inflated. They believe that everything they believe in must me taught in their child's school. Little do they even consider that there are other parents who don't think as they do. But it's never about the others. It's always about them and their child. It's way too much today. Way too much. But the genie is out of the bottle. Everyone thinks they are right... vanity.

 

*At any rate, I think it is a parents obligation to their children to make certain that the education they receive is going to be the one they deserve to have... and not just one that they end up with because of the luck of the draw (based on what school and/or teacher they end up with)*

 

I was more than fine with the school district I was in. My school district is pretty much the typical kind of school district you'll find in suburban America. Was my history teacher or geometry teacher or English teacher the greatest I could have? I wouldn't know. But they were plenty good enough.

 

I guess I'm old-fashioned. I would definitely entrust my child to my school district and its teachers. I wouldn't think twice about it.

 

*You may be right. It could well be that this was his intent in the way they are written and presented.. I just did not see them that way. (maybe because I was on their side more than hers, ha) :D*

 

I'm sure that's the reason.

 

*WELL... I am happy (and a bit proud of myself, ha) to report that they ALL loved it. I heard back from parent after parent how much they all enjoyed it. That whole slumber party (and the various different badge requirements they worked on that night) ended up being one of the most fun events that unit had all year. It was a huge success. (ha.. score one for whacky old "Mrs. Ro" and her nerdy old "silent movie") :D*

 

That's terrific! I'm glad the kids had an open mind to enjoy such a thing as a silent film. Most adults would not.

 

*Well yes you are, Harry Fabian.. I mean Jabez.. I mean Bud.. Um.. I mean "Difficult Boy" :P:P HA!*

 

I'm all of those! Well, with the exception of Bud Abbott. I'm not one to slap. But I know someone who does!

 

*And thanks for saying that you don't see ME that way.. ha. as old fashioned and "quaint" or un-important as some of my points of view may be, to me they are just as alive and valuable... and needed in our society as much of what a lot of more "modern" thinkers may believe.*

 

I think a mix of the two is ideal. That's usually how I think with everything. But, typically, the two sides don't have room for the other. The one side has fears and the other is too high-minded.

 

*It did not just dominate her teaching.. it WAS her teaching. I think I mentioned it before, but she really was her own "curriculum" She was her own private school within the school.*

 

That's definitely true. But she seemed to be teaching some interesting things. Of course, we're only shown so much. I'd say Miss Brodie is more of a state of being than anything else.

 

*Well no.. I wasn't exactly seeing it THAT way.. ha. But I have seen other films of this "genre" that had a much different spin on the REASON the teacher sort set up his or her own "school" within a school. This is one of the few where I can honestly say in NO way was I at all on the teacher's side of things.*

 

And I knew that would be the case.

 

*Oh I did not see that at all. She wanted them to be like her.. or be who SHE thought they should be. (the drama queen, or the one who go on to have her portrait painted, etc,) She had their roles all hand-picked for them. They were free.. and she didn't want them to be. She wanted to mold them into her own pre-defined roles.. or at least she wanted to mold their minds so they would all think like SHE did (because her way to think was the only right way) At least that is how I saw it.*

 

There's a lot of truth to what you say. When Jean is challenged by the girls, she always snaps back in defensive defiance. There is no room for a differing thought or feeling with Jean. That's one of my biggest issues with her. You can't be free and alive and not have the ability to think and feel with honesty. Both sides squash this, just in two different ways.

 

*Ha. maybe. I am not TOO fond of weeding altogether (literally of figuratively, ha) So it may surprise you to know I have done my share of dreaming out there in the meadow along with her, now and then too. But it is what value we place on the dreaming that may be different. I do have a far to practical take on that subject I know. In fact.. it is likely a case where I can be TOO practical for my own good, I confess. So after I got up from dreaming in the meadow.. ha.. I WOULD have to go get my rake, I suppose. ha. :D*

 

Everyone dreams but not everyone is a dreamer. I do find it funny that when a person does a little bit of something they feel they are that. If I save money one day, it doesn't make me a saver. I could save here and spend more there. That's not being a saver. But people will say, "I save." Uh-huh.

 

*And yes.. I agree.. I WOULD roll my eyes at Miss Brodie and probably have something to say BACK to her too, if I had half a chance, ha. (Never let it be said that I am a good "silent sufferer") :D*

 

A troublemaker!

 

*I don't think "conservative" has anything to do with it.. I just think it is a matter where parents do have the right (and again.. the obligation) to teach their children basic common moral concepts that should not be denigrated by those in positions of authority in the education system.*

 

If a liberal worries about their child being exposed to different thoughts and beliefs, they are aren't too much of a liberal. And as I said, I would be all right with my child choosing to believe in however they wished to believe. I'm not right, I'm just me.

 

*Some of the girls in that classroom (at least the ones they showed in the WHOLE class... not just the small group) were pretty young. Not teenagers yet. Those were not "young adults" and they were very (very) impressionable.*

 

You were speaking of high school and college. At those ages, a young adult should be able to make up their own mind. The girls at Marcia Blaine are the impressionable ones and that's where it's dangerous to teach subjects that need personal thinking.

 

*Because to me, it is not vanity to teach your child moral principals that you believe they need to learn so they can live and prosper and make sound choices later in life. It is just good parenting. It is just as you mentioned earlier.. some kids WILL adopt their parents ideals, some will not. But it is no one's right but the parent's to say what those ideals and morals SHOULD be for your child. (until the child is old enough to say for himself)*

 

I completely agree with that. Parents must instill their our own values in a child. I know I would be all about respect, self-esteem, caring for others, unselfishness, and things of that nature. But I must say, such teaching can lead to a child not acquiring things that I'm not. I'm not ambitious or aggressive. I think those components come in handy, particularly in America.

 

*And I can almost hear you saying.. well what if a parent teaches a child things that are harmful in the name of "moral concepts".*

 

No, actually, I wouldn't say that. I think morality is good.

 

*Well.. I could ask the same question about what if the SCHOOL teaches that?? I guess in the end, society DOES have a way of working that all out as well. Because, for example, if I teach my child that certain behaviors and attitudes are the RIGHT way (or the WRONG way) to think or behave, etc.. and they go on to adopt those ideals for themselves as they grow older (or to ignore them, as they see fit) they will end up facing either the social, ethical or legal consequences of that sort of decision later in life. (because if I did my job right.. they WILL be able to think for themselves whehter that really IS the moral compass they want to travel by or not) And the reverse is true as well.. if I did NOT do my job well.. they will likely not know HOW to think unless someone tells them)*

 

And I agree with all that. I'd want my child to think on their own, independent of my thinking. If they wish to believe and behave as I do, then that's their choice. They'll most likely be a mix of myself, their mother, their siblings, and their peers.

 

*So the thing that I find disturbing is that there are some in our society perhaps that think parents shouldn't burden a child any sort of "moral" concept either way, and just let them choose for themselves someday what to think or how to act (either based on experience.. or popular opinion.. or whatever the "winds of change" may blow their way) But in the meantime, I am left wondering, how CAN they think for themselves.. or even decide what is right or wrong if they have never been taught?*

 

I believe every child is taught this. Every single one. However one's parents live, that's how the child is going to be. Those who are different than their parents usually are because they just wish to be rebellious or they are actually making a real decision of their own making. Most that I know just follow in their parents' footsteps but they do so in a way that is more fitting of their generation.

 

*To me, it would be doing your child the worst sort of injustice to leave them with no moral underpinning to work off of that way.*

 

Like I said, every child gets this. It's just that everyone is so different.

 

*Vanity doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it was the right thing to do to teach your children that we are all valuable people regardless of our race, (or that we all have a right to be treated fairly, so we should treat others as we'd have them treat us). Some things are about "vanity" (if you are talking about parents who want to dictate.. or have overt influence over what their kid likes to do.. or how they dress.. or where they go to college, or whether they are interested in the same things you are as they grow up, etc) but SOME things are really just right or wrong. Teaching your child the moral concepts you believe are of value to them to adopt in society as they grow up is not a "vain" thing so much as it is just what parents have the right (and again.. at the risk of repeating myself) the obligation to do.*

 

The vanity speak of is that we all think that we know what's best for our child. I think that's impossible. But we all think this way. That's the vanity I speak of.

 

*And YES.. we can do damage to them (and others) if we teach them the wrong things.. OR if we don't teach them at all. So in the end, we must strive to teach our children well. (ha.. sounds like the line to SONG, now doesn't it??) :) And at the end of the day, (and this may only be what I believe personally so take it or leave it, but) I believe ultimately we will answer to God for what we did or did not teach them.*

 

I can only teach my child so much. I'm limited. My child will learn things with you. They would learn things with Movieman. They would things with Jackie. And I know they'd learn some things with Miss G! For me to think I know all that's best for my child is vanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_Hi, Laffite_ -- I'm glad you chose to watch *Brother Orchid* !

 

*It was worth seeing, not only Ralph, but Eddie, Bogie, Ann, Alan (Jenkins), Donald (Crisp), did I forget anybody! Quite a nice gathering for this one.*

 

You're right, it's a really good cast. Allen Jenkins is always at home in these comedic gangster films. Now to see Donald Crisp in this kind of film and in the kind of role he's playing is much different.

 

*This was entertaining. Jenkins' malapropisms right of the bat set the tone. I was aware but had forgotten what movie it was where Ann Southern sat at a table and played this little drunk scene on the telephone. I had seen that before in some movie and have wanted to find it. Well, this was the movie. Only I hadn't realized that she wasn?t really drunk, she was feigning. No matter, she certainly did it well. She was so attractive, and she did that sort of dizzy characterization with the slightly dumb-blonde speech well too. Another one these loyal to the end good girls.*

 

But she messes up royally! Ann!

 

*Eddie does the good-guy and the bad-guy stuff in the same movie. Yes, it?s difficult to think that Johnny Sarto is going to remain with the fellowship but since this is a comedy we don?t have to worry about it.*

 

I think Eddie does that the best. Here, the tones change often. We're laughing and then it gets serious.

 

*Sometimes I get weird and think it might be nice to be like those guys, no problems and being peaceful all the time. Donald Crisp played that to a tee. Good luck, Johnny, I don?t know how you?re going to do it.*

 

If there is one thing that I feel does lead to happiness it's contentment with one's self. So many of us are always chasing this.

 

*Frank, there are 12 or 13 of your latest sheet (your reviews were longer than the ones on the previous list and fun to read) that are on Netflix and I?m going to try to watch a few and then post.*

 

That would be great! And I did write more this time. I'm not sure why, either. Thank you for the compliment. :)

 

*I still want to post on Cesar but have been busy and unable to sit down to it.*

 

I certainly hope that you do.

 

*Also, I took Miss Greer?s mention and actually watched Cutthroat Island. Yike, I haven't seen a movie like that for awhile! I got through it though and was even entertained here and there. Never would have selected that for myself (and probably for good reason :) )*

 

I don't even know that one!

 

*Frank, what do you mean by ?public domain? DVDs? Is that library or netflix?*

 

A "public domain" film is one that's rights have lapsed and this allows anyone to release the film on DVD. The problem with this is that those who release such films do so with horrible quality. Many are transferred from video tapes to DVD. These companies will also "lie" with their advertising, saying the films have been "remastered".

 

The copy of *Life with Father* that I own is a PD film. It's in a PD box set of 100 films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But she messes up royally! Ann!

 

Her motivation for what she did was benign, she did not knowingly betray him, she thought she was helping. Not being able to see through the ruse is a part of her ditziness. But I know what you mean, I even had flashes of irritation with her when she did that :) .

 

>Charlie Chan in Reno (1939) -- As Charlie Chan mysteries go, this is one of the better ones that I've seen. It all takes place in a Reno hotel with, you guessed it, an impending divorce at its heart. Other than a good story, there's also a good cast, headlined by Ricardo Cortez. He's the perfect kind of suspect, don't you think? Phyllis Brooks plays one of the female suspects. She's pretty good. While I'm still adjusting to Sidney Toler as "Chan", I really like "Number Two" son, played by Victor Sen Yung.

 

I?m glad you said that, lots of trouble adjusting to Toler. You?re probably speaking comparatively, I can't even say who the original was. My adjustment is just with having him pretend to be Asian, something I should be over by now what with old Hollywood being what it was. At one point the sheriff refers to him as, "this here Oriental..." Toler is pretty good at it, I guess. I can remember seeing Charlie Chan movies when I was a kid, either TV or some theater that maybe put them on (I wasn?t around when they first came out :)

) and my brother and I used to get a kick out of the references to Number 1 son, Number 2 son, etc., we thought that was really funny. Number Two son, yes, help and hindering by and by but providing (along with the sheriff) a little comic relief here and there. Victor Sen Yung is so young and for me a little dull, but I'm not being fair, I can't get out of my mind that splendid portrayal in The Letter. I looked him up on imbd and see he had a long movie career. I didn?t really enjoy the Chan movie that much, I doubt if I'll ever see another one, I had trouble getting through it, actually. You're right about the cast, though, lots of interesting supporting players.

 

 

>White Zombie (1932) -- I thought this film dragged... a lot. I guess that's what you get when the majority of the characters in the film don't speak! On the bright side, Bela Lugosi is tremendous in the picture. It's a great performance by him. He doesn't have to speak for me to be mesmerized. He's definitely a "silent" actor. What I did like about this film was its message about love. It's pretty sneaky to have such a message in this kind of horror flick. But it really fits.

 

I thought it dragged too, but only the second half. I was quite taken with the beginning. Of course I?m "modern" and therefore jaded about real old films like this, I couldn?t really get a fright about it, but I was thinking how scary this might have been had I been there watching this in a theater at the time it came out. I think it would have scared me, especially if I were a kid. This must have been a pretty well made film at the time. Madge Bellamy had a small face and big beautiful eyes. At one point she is in her mesmerized state playing Liszt Leibestraum quite beautifully all the while being lamented over having no soul, perhaps some unintended irony. I haven?t seen a lot of Bela but yes, very good, what a face. In general, all the acting came across especially well, I think those most responsible for making this movie really knew what they were doing. I liked it overall.

 

I think I have The Tender Trap and Hobson?s Choice coming, they were on your list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us