MissGoddess

Yes, I liked Walter playing something other than congenial. He can be quite effective when he's a baddie. If you check out *Dark Command*, one of John Wayne's better "lesser" westerns, he's particularly good as William Cantrell (in a VERY thinly disguised portrayal of notorious confederate raider, William Quantrill).

Goodness, that is a switch for Yvette. I first noticed her in a very rarely seen film called *The Picasso Summer*. It's not a very good movie, it's just nice for the beautiful southern France and Spanish locations. I love her in *Light in the Piazza*. Now that is not an easy role to play if you don't have the requisite childlike quality. You can't "act" it, you have to have something in you that the camera reads as "innocence" and she really captures it. I was surprised that George Hamilton was rather good, too. In fact, it's my favorite thing he's ever done. But nothing beats the Roman sights and scenery and...Rossano Brazzi.

Thank you for the story behind "Lady Mondegreen", I confess I had never read it or heard the expression before. Her experience mirrors some of my own movie-watching. I'm constantly getting names and faces confused, so I might be Silvia Wright's twin in that area.

Jackie I'm so glad you enjoyed it...Alan Ladd doesn't have too many performances that can be pointed to with such satisfaction...not his fault, but of the circumstances of his career. I can see why Lana would be a possibility, except she seems so utterly Hollywood and I wonder if she would have been able to handle that flighty dialogue of Daisy's. It's not really her style. She was more the baby-talk type. However I can't beleive I didn't think of *Maureen O'Sullivan* before!!! I even considered Vivien Leigh, but Maureen seems much closer. She would have nailed it and could have lightened her hair, no doubt. Apparently Gene Tierney was considered, and Tyrone Power wanted the lead if Gene was to be in it, but as much as I like those two, I think it really would have skewed the intent of the story and characters to have two such overpoweringly beautiful people in those roles. What do you all think of *Yvette Mimieux* as "Daisy", if the timing were better? To me she's light, somewhat kooky, can seem appealing, charming and vapid, too. And she was blonde.

One of my favorite songs growing up was "Billie Jean", and I always thought Michael Jackson was singing "The chair is not my son..." It still sounds like that to me! I didn't know these were called "Lady Mondegreens", how cute!

Fitzgerald always looked like Charles Lindburgh's brother. Jackie, Tom Buchanan is described as the son of a very wealthy family, he didn't work, just spent the money like no one else and he was someone who reached his pinnacle in college as a football hero. He isn't described as lazy, just obnoxious, superior and entitled, as you say. Barry Sullivan conveys many of these qualities perfectly, but he's too rough and not the right physical type. It seems like everyone in the story is blonde, ha, including Jordan. I picture someone of Lex Barker's type in the role.

*Hi Tall T,* *I just love the clothes of the 1920s thru the early 30s. Actually from the teens thru the early 30s. So romantic and refined. I love the 40s thru the early 60s, too, but they weren't as romantic to me.*

I watched *Big Brown Eyes*, it was fun and better than I expected. I mean it moved briskly and Joan was very funny with Cary. It was neat to see Cary in a picture with Walter Pidgeon, but I wish they'd had better scenes together.

Hi, Lady B! Are Dr. Eckleburg's eyes upon you? It's fun pondering who might have made a believable "Daisy" in 1949. I wonder if those weren't too pragmatic times to find a Hollywood actress up for such an emphemeral, illogical...kook. She reminds me of a 70s flower child, the almost schizoid way she talks. Or like "Irene Bullock", but without the concern and compassion for others. Watching the movie last night inspired me to re-read the novel, so her character as Fitzgerald conceived her is fresh in my mind, as are the others. I think you're right about Lois Chiles, besides liking her sultry looks, I thought she had the perfect ability to seem smart and vainly self-centered yet with an unthreatening manner that made it impossible to dislike her. Not to mention she's very sensual. I think Shelley was wonderful for "Myrtle", however they literally only gave her two short scenes before...well, I won't spoil it for those unfamiliar with the story. In the '74 version, Karen Black gets way more screen time and makes the most of it. Thinking it over, it's hard to cast for characters that are fundamentally empty. Anything of real interest about them actually lies in the magic of the author's words, how he describes Nick's reactions to them. As for Alan, besides looks and that innate sadness, what I thought he also brought to the role that Redford could never do is he is utterly believable as someone who was in those rough rackets and, essentially, a gangster. Redford a rum-running boot legger? Ha! Redford acts more to me like what Gatsby WANTED to be. I mean, Redford seemed the real thing, someone who only thought beautiful thoughts, lol. Gatsby wanted to be that, if only for Daisy. Ladd brought out that dimension, and it's heartbreaking. P.S. What I love about the 74 version is the costumes...they are stunning.

*It's a shame that Ruth Hussey doesn't come off well, she seems a sure fit in the role of Jordan in my mind's eye.* She does make sense for the role, that's why I blame the direction. The main reason I say this is that at one point, seated at the piano with Nick (MacDonald Carey) she breaks completely out of character, turns to the camera and becomes the narrator of a flashback in the most obtrusive fashion. It's completely the fault of the director to do something like that. She sounds positively like she was reciting and that's nothing like the normally natural actress.

Somehow the sunny blandness of this lobby card captures the movie's main failings. I'm glad I finally watched this version of one of the best American stories. In one sense this adaptation succeeds, if we are to come away believing Nick and Jay are the only worthwhile people in the story. In other respects, it does fall down and "pedestrian" was a good word choice, Bronxie. However I can't agree with you about Betty Field as "Daisy", I think her badly miscast as was Barry Sullivan (though he's preferable to the sweaty, vermin-like Bruce Dern) and Ruth Hussey as "Jordan" never seemed fully realized. I found both Hussey and Field too competent, too sure-minded to play these flowers of the jazz age. In Hussey's case, I'm prepared to blame the director. As much as I dislike Mia Farrow, her innate weirdness is closer to Fitzgerald's vague and treacherously weak "Daisy" than Field's earth-bound, actressy whine. Field is a terrific actress, she played the part as written, but Daisy, like Jay, is one of those roles that requires the right personality type, even at the expense of skill. Shelley Winters was perfect and I was impressed with Howard Da Silva's turn, and thought he lent the only really tense moments, aside from Ladd's and MacDonald Carey's (Nick) scenes. It's hard to mess up such a good story, this version is merely ordinary and that's in some ways worse than the faults of the later movie, which at least captured more of the "tone" of the era. The direction was odd, some scenes felt like they were staged right out of a 1931 movie, which in 1931 was alright but in 1949 it seemed empty and amateurish. Maybe because this story depends so much on a light touch balanced by an ability to make the audience feel the uneasiness underneath a story about the "roaring 20s". It was like the movie was treated just as another melodrama, but with flightier characters. Again, thank goodness for Ladd's total commitment to the part. Too bad we can't take the best of both versions to make one good one.

Hey everyone, a little *Alan Ladd* "moment" here. Finally, I can see one of the most elusive movies on my "must watch" list...the 1949 version of *The Great Gatsby* starring Alan as Jay Gatsby. I have heard mixed reviews on the film itself, but many has said Alan really IS the enigmatic character. So here is part one, for any who are interested. you know how quickly these things get pulled so enjoy it while you can. I'm going to watch it tonight! *The Great Gatsby (1949)* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2jh6XkjrHU&playnext=1&list=PL26C33481BB06E89F

{font:arial, helvetica, sans-serif}*No, I didn't. That's a wonderful observation by you.* it becomes obvious when you watch it again. *Oh, and I love Dennis Price in this, he plays Peter Gibbs, the young Brit soldier who's an organist.* *Why?* I don't know! Maybe because he seems like he has all the answers...and is a bit cynical...then he learns to believe in things.{font}

did you notice how the movie subtley finds all the connections or things people have in common with each other? between past and present people, town and country folk, male and female, soldiers and civilians, old and young, people of different station (the Magistrate, the common people)...all the soldiers like Bob are strangers to each other yet they find things in common. It's remarkable, really. I definitely think this movie needs to be seen more than once to really get all that's to it. Oh, and I love Dennis Price in this, he plays Peter Gibbs, the young Brit soldier who's an organist.

*I would be up for a Black Narcissus chat too. I've seen it but I will watch it again if we decide to chat about it.* Fantastic!

Now don't you go spoiling the entire film! I didn't! I didn't reveal who the "Glue Man" was or even go very far into the movie. Your choice of caps is exquisite. Expertly done! Yours weren't so bad, either. I have it on in the background and it's simply filled with so many ravishing images. I mean, it's all "little" stuff, not the grandeur of their color films...but it's the kind of things I look at when I travel Europe, oddly enough. The doors, windows, rooms...how about the "ducking stool" for talkative women...I can't believe you let that get by. *There is a decent amount of subtle humor in the film. For me, it plays like Mark Twain.* Yes, it's very subtle and I love it. It comes out of character. Everyone is a pretty good sport. I love the washerwoman who has a farm and hired Alison, the wheelwright, the carpenter, the Magistrate, the soldiers...everyone's so well drawn and unique and it feels almost as if the filmakers simply hired the whole town for the bit parts. It's very true, and I'm quite guilty of it. There was more "doing something" back in the old world. Today we are busy doing nothing. I'm afraid that's me, too, lately.

hi butterscotchie....so you like this movie, too? i knew that you would. it's so gorgeous, i didn't even pick the best shots.

*Now I am drooling for this movie..ha. I will keep on looking to find it.. if only to see MORE of what you are showing here.. (did I mention "oh my" ha.)* Oh, I'm sure you'll find it sooner than later.

A CANTERBURY TALE Pilgrims in Chaucer's day... Modern "pilgrims"... Notice the little train bisecting the landscape: And the English/American humor... The village life scenes I love... It's full of little moments like this that I love: I love Alison's response to seeing the old house where the Magistrate lives... Back on the old road, and still using a cart... And this is one instance where the movie is more apt today, when they are talking about movies:

I believe there is that component, to be sure. But I think he decided to go after Carol (Geraldine Brooks) with the idea of making Louise (Joan Crawford) jealous. What's the one thing that would really upset Louise? That David would actually COMMIT to Carol. That's what Louise wanted the most from David and he always laughed at such a notion. But when she marries another man, he's bitter and he needs to find a way to get back at her. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I bet you're right. Which makes him malicious on top of everything else. So he deserves his fate. That's a beautiful observation. There really is a love for the common and old world in A Canterbury Tale. I believe it works on another level today. I don't know if I can explain what I mean. It was made for that audience in wartime, to remind them of the richness of the past and how it is with them still. But now, when we watch it, we are watching the actors who represented the "present day" in much the same fashion as they would study the people before them. So you've got a sort of triple level of time passing and how it influences your views. Why, even though it was wartime, they still come off as more civilized and serene than today so in a way, the movie is more powerful now. The beauty of the film is what I believe Jackie will adore. The overall theme of the film is what I think Quiet Gal will adore. I liked the camper in storage. It's lovely. I'm sure they'll both find things to appreciate in it. I feel like it's an undiscovered gem, and quite overshadowed by some of P&P's flashier films. Do you have I Know Where I'm Going! recorded? It's one of Bronxgirl's favorites.

*99 River Street* is brilliant, as movieman suggested. And another example of the guy getting and giving a real whallop!

I didn't know you'd seen *Black Narcissus*, too, Ro! That would be an interesting discussion if we get around to it one day. I agree, that is one super dark movie in many aspects. I keep seeing Deborah Kerr and Kathleen Byron's eyes boring into one another!

+*At first I was not sure what sort of role he was going to play in the whole story. Poor guy.. he was just trying to earn a living.. just trying to keep himself out of any more trouble.. and then WHAMMO!!! He gets set up for something and has NO clue what is going on.. what a great start for his character (to really draw you in) *I was holding my breath to see if he was the kinda guy who just wanted to clear his name... or if he was out to settle the score.. hmm... I am thinking now it was a bit of both.**+ I know, he was very dark and of course, hardened by his unjust experiences, so we are not sure what he'll end up being like. Like movieman pointed out, this is a far cry from the sunny leading men he played for Fox like *Miracle on 34th Street*, *Sun Valley Serenade* and other musical comedies.

*All good points. I think the crazy folks are crazy because they are going against the system. They are disagreeing with what they are being taught and told to accept, so the system labels them as "crazy." Fuller is definitely smacking the pursuit of fame and personal glory, particularly with those in the news business. And, you're right, in classic Fuller fashion, a stripper is decent.* I like that. You're right, everyone was pretty screwed up by how they were brought up and the inconsistency. *David Sutton (Van Heflin) is a mixed bag, for me. He's a horrible louse in that he's cheating on his wife, but he's pretty open with Louise (Joan Crawford) about his not being serious about love and a deep relationship. So it's kind of strange that we're to hate him from Louise's point of view.* *David's selfish pursuits (sex, being a big one) does make him quite modern. And he does slink back into town whenever he's "needy." He's a slimy one.* I think his interest in Geraldine Brooks is also selfish. She admires him and thinnks he's more wonderful than he is and this puffs up his ego. He likes being with someone who's not onto him and I don't think it's because she brings out the best in him, either. It's purely selfish because he ought to know he's not the right kind of guy for her. Re: *A Canterbury Tale*. I forgot to mention how much I was taken by the scene in the wood shop. The lighting, staging and of course, the whole authenticity of the scene was so well done I can practically smell the wood chips. Watching people who are good with their hands, and then have that actually be celebrated by the story itself, is the kind of stuff I love. Edited by: MissGoddess on Jul 12, 2011 11:54 PM

Oh Molo what a wonderful surprise! Thank you SO much for posting these caps from the elusive first movie of MM! She looks gorgeous, no surprise and it seems like a pretty decent bit part to show off her beauty and youth at the time. Not even the murky VHS quality can hide how glowing she was. Absolutely brilliant addition to this thread (which coincidentally, I've been wanting an excuse to bump up). THANK YOU!