Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About konway87

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Like I said, my opinion is mine. Yours is yours. Let's end it that way.
  2. Bilgewasser, You wrote - "In his 2002 interview, I believe he stated he wasn't really traumatized that night." I will only give one example. I can give other examples. But I am not going to. Here is a small portion from the interview. "HR" is Herman Raucher. *HR:* I recognized her handwriting ... but were talking about 1971, which was almost 30 years after the incident, and I get this letter - and I never knew her last name - and the postmark was Canton, Ohio, and she had remarried. And, interestingly enough, she was worried about what she had done to me and my
  3. SPOILERS How do you know that she had, at the time, a much greater loss than Herman did? How much do you know about Herman's psychological conditions during that time? He himself states that night incident was a traumatic event for him. He completely lost the woman he loved. At the age of 14, He lost his virginity, his innocence, became psychologically disturbed, and was also depressed. On the top of that, he started facing other sad news. As we both know, there was only major thing Herman had in his mind during that night - To prevent her from getting into any possibilities of dange
  4. SPOILERS From a moral standpoint, I can say that she did wrong. It was her responsibility to at least find out if her friend was alive or not. But she was only concerned about her life. We know Dorothy's feelings towards Herman through her letter after that night. Remember the letter she left for Herman before she left the island. Her feelings towards Herman was revealed through that letter. Do you remember these lines from the letter? - "What I will do is remember you. I pray that you will be spared all senseless tragedies. I wish you good things, Hermie. Only Good things. Always, Do
  5. SPOILERS In my opinion, I don't think there is any point in seeing the real Dorothy's side of the story during that night considering that she was heavily drinking. Let me take this in a "General" viewpoint. One of the biggest differences between the film and the real incident was the real Dorothy was "heavily drinking." As we both know, her heavy drinking resulted from the shocking news about her husband's death. So she was not only heavily drunk, but also she was in a horrible shocking condition. In that condition, she could have killed herself. That's why Herman was heavily concerned a
  6. Yes, I agree that Herman Raucher was 14 in real life. In the film, Hermie is 15 because of studio's insistence to make him slightly older. So we can say Hermie was 14/15. To me, the point is Dorothy treated him like an adult and she herself admitted that she thought he was older. Herman said that Dorothy treated him like an adult when he was at the age of 74. We don't know if Dorothy invited Hermie just for "time pass" during that night. There are other possibilities. We know that Hermie was the "only friend and only help" Dorothy had during the summer of 1942. Unlike the film, Hermie helped D
  7. Bilgewasser, How do you know that she "may have" invited Hermie for a soda pop and salt water taffy? Are you implying that she thought he was just a small boy? "If" that's what you are implying, then here is something for you. Let me take the film so that we both can "visualize" it. In the film, we "see" that she was more than happy when she says "Feel free to drop by." Now let me explain about the age subject. In the interview, Herman Raucher himself admitted that Dorothy treated him like "an adult." But first, we will look into the film about this subject. Here is an examp
  8. Bilgewasser, At first, you said it was "an unplanned encounter." Now you are saying that "a friendly little dinner was planned." It is never mentioned in both film and in the book that "a friendly little dinner was planned" during that night. When you are jumping to a conclusion, please be accurate. When Hermie expresses his interest to see Dorothy during that night, Dorothy's reply was "Feel free to drop by." To me, the point is she gave him "complete freedom" to visit her during that night. There is no indication that "a friendly little dinner was planned." That's all I want to say.
  9. It wasn't an unplanned encounter. Dorothy invited Herman to come and see her at that night. I want to explain much more. I don't feel like it anymore. I explained only parts of it in other thread.
  10. I just didn't write the sentences. I just wrote keywords from your sentences for you to figure it out. Some People from certain country regions find it disrespectful if I happen to copy and paste the sentences and point out keywords from their sentences. That's why I left it like that.
  11. Simple. please leave room for other interpretations even if you disagree with it. When you say words like unimportant, perfect and flawless, this completely prevents people from sharing their thoughts. This leaves no room to share their thoughts with you. That's why I couldn't share my feelings completely. As you know, opinions has nothing to do with right or wrong. But always leave room to share the interpretations of others. Although I disagreed with your viewpoints, still I listened to it and appreciates it.
  12. SPOILERS I am not trying to force you to think that my way is correct. I am just saying that I have a strong disagreement with the way the film ends. But that's just me. I understand that the ending of the film satisfies you. That is good. I appreciate that feeling. But I haven't received a chance to "explain the reasons" why I disagree with the ending of the film. The only thing I was able to say was "the changes that were made in the film." You were able to state your reasons and feelings why you like the ending of the film. I listened to your points even if I disagreed with it. B
  13. SPOILERS Summer of '42 is certainly a great movie. I agree with that. What you said "Its a movie" reminded me of something. "Its only a movie." - This was what Hitchcock once said to Bernard Herrmann when Herrmann was serious about the plot points. But Bernard Herrmann seriously replied - "But its your movie!" Like Herrmann, I take certain films seriously. Summer of '42 is one of them. Herman Raucher wrote screenplay of the film based on his real life story, because of the loss of Dorothy and the death of his best friend Oscy. My point is the ending in film is based upon real l
  14. SPOILERS I just want to point out that the film "Summer of '42" gave birth to the novel "Summer of '42". The film came first. Not the novel. Herman Raucher wrote the book to increase the publicity of the film. But the book goes somewhat faithful to the film. I think you both got a little confused. With the help of Raucher, Robert Mulligan was making the film that was based on the real incident. That means they made the ending based on what happened. But as "a viewer", I don't agree due to couple of changes. I feel that "the audience" doesn't have to necessarily agree with th
  15. SPOILERS markfp2, please don't misunderstand me. What I was saying was that changes in events and changes in characters can push the story to a whole different direction. I learned this from Alfred Hitchcock. When he directed The Wrong Man (1956), he tried to stay as close as possible to the real incident. He stayed faithful to the real incidents. The only thing he changed was he "skipped" "some" evidences to heighten the tension. But in Summer of '42, its much more different. There are differences in events and couple of differences in characters. Mulligan himself changed some events
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...