MissGoddess

> Such nonsense! You just talked about gangster and war films! > Because YOU asked me for heaven's sake! > Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo! You're right, I'm not needed on the Ark! > Someone should shovel out the stalls.

> Now that's a fair statement. I know you really don't care for horror, sci-fi, musicals, war, and gangsters. Film noir definitely comes in ahead of them for you. > I also don't hold as fast to categories. I like "drama" best of all, and that grabs onto many different "genres". > Where's my pity?! No one will have me! > Maybe butterscotch will have some after you watch a Greer movie for her. > *I really enjoy that comedy.* > > It's that bad? > > Yes! > I try to appease! I need to know what films you like so I can tear them to shreds. > And reveal your bad taste.

> Thanks, little darlin'. We are alright.. just some "stuff" going on. Drama seems to be my middle name lately.. ha. (Ok. not really.. because then the middle initial on all the checks in my checkbook would be wrong. ha.. but I am looking forward to a few days off in the near future.. I think) :-) > Good for you! You need some time to unwind, I'm sure. > We'll have to pick a time and watch it together. ha, and we can have one of our famous gab sessions as we watch. :-) (only I just remembered.. ha.. our copy is an old homemade VHS tape.. and I think there may even be commercials. so you'll have to pause as I fast forward through them) > Sounds great! I just have to get it myself. > > Exactly. I might even go further and say it is an "ideal" of what some folks believe romance is.. but as I have often said before (so I won't belabor the point again, ha) Love and romance are not the same thing. Reality is a 'whole other animal" aint it. > SUMMERTIME SPOILER It's ideal in the present, but depending on the kind of person you are, it can have strange consequences. I mean, it's glorious to be loved by a dreamy, handsome Italian, but I also know there isn't a chance she's ever going to meet anyone in Akron who even comes close to being like him. At any rate, the fact that I like to remember is that Jane does leave, she doesn't continue the affair and that took character considering the temptation to stay was even harder than it was to start it. So many hang on to something that's not really right for them, only to find it deteriorate into something desperate and unpleasant. I think Jane knew that's the only way it could have ended if she stayed and in the end, she went back to her true values, yet perhaps feeling a lot less rigid and judgmental. That's my corny take, anyway. > I have not seen that film, but I do know a bit about the story.. so I imagine you are right. She did seem to have a "knack" for portraying characters along that line. I don't know for sure what it was about them.. (appearing outwardly strong yet fragile inside) sort of a desperate longing (to the point of embarassing) and yet mixed with a somewhat pitiable (empathetic even) innocent and naive nature > I like that! "To the point of embarrassing". That is definitely the case in several of her roles..I find myself squirming with their unflinching nakedness.

> It's true! I'm the one who truly likes film noir. > Not the only one! I like many of them, though I'm not a noirista. It's just that it's your favorite. > I'm not allowed on the Ark! > Thank goodness. > My focus was on Ava! I have no idea who is this lass is! You would think I'd notice you! > Very funny. > I thought he was going to end up being annoying, but I liked him. > "Hey, lady!" Wait till Bronxgirl reads what you have to say about Mauro. > > *You should see It Started in Naples, then, featuring an almost identical Italian street urchin.* > > See, now you're firing some titles at me. > I really enjoy that comedy. > No! Sweet T wants me to watch Greer. > Then don't ask for suggestions! > *I've never seen him play a sophisticate in anything else. He's actually believable. * > > Not a sophisticate! > He pulls it off. > So she didn't capture you? > You should do a comedy act.

> Ha.. I have missed you too, little gal. It has been a bit "whacky" around here lately.. but what else is new?? ha. > I do hope you and your little family are okay. > Well in all honestly.. it took me becoming "old" ha.. before I learned to REALLY like this movie. When I was a kid and it would come on.. I used to just roll my eyes and turn the channel. (unless my dad was watching it, ha) But after I married the QT and found out that it was a favorite of his.. I started watching it more often (off and on over the years) and I really have come to like it a lot. It IS tedious though (in places) but I think that is a part of the "mood" too. I mean. .there they are.. out in the jungle.. sweating away day after day.. after day. (did I mention it is tedious?) ha. > See, that's what I think I need, to watch it with someone. In fact, I think it played not too long ago at the Film Forum here in NYC, and I passed it up. Seeing it with an audience might unlock the door. > But you have to love Guiness's character. He is just that.. a man of character.. an principle. and he lives and (semi-spoiler alert) more or less dies by the rules. (even if ever so politely) He is perfectly played.. and you are right. so is his "counter-point" Saito. Talk about a couple of guys with IRON for guts (and necks.. oh me. .stiffed neck to the hilt) > I got as far as the scenes where he's in the "box" and the doctor tried to reason with him. Heavens, stiff nicked indeed! > But honestly.. you gotta love Holden in this film too. And the way HIS character stands out differently from the two of them. Just as stiffed neck.. but in an entirely DIFFERENT way (and for a completely different reason) > I enjoyed him so far. It's the perfect kind of character for Holden. > You know. .ha. I HATE to confess this (because I am going to date myself TERRIBLY when I say this.) but I have not even SEEN this film since WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY back when I was in college (my freshman year in fact.. a gazillion YEARS ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth.. ha) I took a film literature class and this was one of the films we watched. And mostly what I remember about it was liking Hepburn's character very much.. and admiring her strengths..and yet.. (dadgummit) getting so disgusted with her by her weakeness.. (PS: Mr. Grey.. gardenia's indeed. ha ) > I both empathize with her but I don't think what she did was right or necessarily would make someone "happier" in the long run. I've yet to see that happen. And I do realize Lean is pushing this idea. He wants us to see that Jane is too rigid and her ideas "childish". In a way, the movie really goes after what is considered "provincial" attitudes. I don't agree with him there, but that's nothing new. Most of the world did and does. It's romantic, not reality. > I was thinking about this the other day.. in a way.. this film could be "Alice Adams.. the spinster years" ha. Only instead of riding off with Fred MacMurray... she goes back home a little older and wiser.. blah blah blah.. but I do confess I may be too harsh on her.. since I have not seen it in so long, I may be remembering some of it wrong. (because.. gee.. the last time I saw this film.. Ronald Reagan was still in the first term of his presidency.. EEK.. I AM old.. ha ) > Oh, dear! Ha! I never would have thought about that, but I see what you mean. Jane reminds me of one of Kate's other many spinsters, Lizzie I think she's called, in *The Rainmaker*. The stories are very similar, too.

> It's because I am! > Rubbish! > Oooohhh, I like Sylvia. > It's a very "Sylvia" role for her. You'll like her. > I don't believe "Cookie" thinks so at that moment. But it was rather heartbreaking to see the couples go off and do things and Jane was there alone. > It's humiliating. It was like she was the only single animal on Noah's Ark. > *The Barefoot Contessa.* > > > Who is she? Does she play the wife of one of the rich men at the table? > No, she's the frightened tramp! I can't believe you don't remember her from the very first scene and the climactic party...in both scenes she's badly humiliated by Warren Stevens. I felt terrible for her. > > *Yes, you'll never meet Isa Miranda in Harrisburg.* > > > I don't want to meet her! She's not my type. > She's the only type that would talk to you! > *He was a rascal.* > > > And super cute. > Are you saying you liked a kid in a movie...because he was cute? Who is this person?! You should see *It Started in Naples*, then, featuring an almost identical Italian street urchin. > > *One day I'll finish it if only to stop being embarrassed because I haven't! Do you have it?* > > > I do have it recorded. > We should all plan to watch, since Ro said it's a favorite. I think Jackie likes it, too. > You actually like Steiger in something? That's amazing. He can be a tough watch. > I've never seen him play a sophisticate in anything else. He's actually believable. > Why, because she's sweet? > I wouldn't call her sweet. An "Emma Bovary" is a difficult character to really like unless you are won over by the actress. I wasn't, much. She's a good actress, though, I'll give her that. I think Julie Christie would have been more interesting.

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}Hello my dear Miss G.. > Howdy. Ro!! I've missed you like the Dickens! (Pun intended, of course!) > Excuse me while I blab in on your chat, dear gal.. but I noticed you were gabbing on a family favorite.. ha. > Great! I hope you stick around and convince me to watch it all the way through! > It is one of the QT's all time fave movies ever. And you have it exactly right. It is a battle of wills.. and will power (on multiple levels in fact). And it is very intriguing how it all plays out. > That's my impression. The two Colonels, Nicholson (Alec Guiness) and Saito (Hayakawa) seemed SO very much alike despite their different cultures and ideologies, they were like mirror images of each other. That is the thing that most fascinates me about the movie. I've absolutely loved every moment of Hayakawa's performance, and it's quite unlike anything I've ever seen Guinness do. > It is also a fun movie for some really good "lines" when you want to be a "smart mouth" ha. We quote lines from it back and forth to each other all the time. ha. ( My favorite is to walk by and wallop my sweet QT a good one right on the top of his head (only just a love tap, ha) and then run like heck while calling back "This is WAR.. not a game of CRICKET!") ha. We also like to say "Madness" a lot. ha. That one gets used around here VERY often (but not for the more "obvious' reasons.. ha. ) > Ha!! And those are two lines from scenes I have watched so I know exactly what you mean. I loved Saito's comment about "the rules", it did make me laugh! > > And on a completely DIFFERENT note.. > > i think anyone who's been really lonely can empathize with Jane Hudson > > I have to agree entirely.. at least speaking strictly from an "emotionall level" But to be honest.. I just don't feel as sorry for her as I WISH I could, because.. well.. you know me... (hard hearted gal that I am) :-) > I think I do know what you mean and I share your qualms about her actions. I admit to this being a "guilty" and I do mean guilty pleasure.

> Film noir?! Ha! > I've seen as many if not more than you have! You act like you're the only one who likes it around here. > I have that one recorded. It's OOP on DVD. I see Sylvia Sidney is in it. > Yes. > I liked when Jane and Phyl (Mari Aldon) are both upset and disappointed at the counter. > Oh yes! "You just ask too much. There are two of you, Cookie. Two is the most wonderful number there is." > *Remember the blonde from another movie? "I'm just a frightened tramp."* > > No! > *The Barefoot Contessa*. > Oh, definitely. Especially someone like me! I'm like a mirror image of her. But I'd never go on such a vacation. I'm doomed! > Yes, you'll never meet Isa Miranda in Harrisburg. > > *Do you also recollect the actor who played the son of Rossano Brazzi? You recently saw him in a comedy with another blonde.* > > > I guess you are referring to *How to Marry a Millionaire*. But I don't remember who he played. No, it wasn't that one. He played Laurence Olivier's son in *The Prince and the Showgirl*. > I liked the little boy, Mauro (Gaetano Autiero). The relationship between he and Jane was just as touching, maybe even more so. > He was a rascal. > She really was confident. Maybe that's why she reminded me some of Ava. > I can see that. > I'm pretty darn sure I'd like it, so I do agree with you. It's the kind of war film I like. > One day I'll finish it if only to stop being embarrassed because I haven't! Do you have it? > It sounds like a good test for me. Epics are worrisome, but Lean's kind of romance may work for me. > It's also one of the few times I actually enjoyed a Rod Steiger performance. He is brilliant. I love his line readings. He really bites with cynical truth. So many points of view are shown in this movie. Most films depict one or two, but though everything is seen through Yuri's (Omar Sharif) poetic eyes, we still get the point of view of all these very different people from wildly different backgrounds and motives. That fascinates me, too. > It's your story?! I didn't know that. > Very funny. I admit the one thing I don't care for is Sara Myles. She's not my kind of actress.

> That's another distinction between the two. I can't see you going for the urban environment. > I like it fine with film noir, or almost anything. I guess *Dead End* is another gangster film I do like, one that is quite "stagey" but that is part of its appeal to me. It puts the focus on the people. If you don't have it, I wouldn't be surprised if it airs on TCM soon. Bogart is still climbing and it's interesting to see him at odds with someone as decent as McCrea. Plus you can see him with Claire Trevor long before *Key Largo*. > Boy, ain't that the truth. I also liked the two different kinds of couples. It helped to show that alongside Jane's loneliness. > i did too. It really stung when she wanted to go along with the blonde and Darren McGavin and McGavin brushed her off. Remember the blonde from another movie? "I'm just a frightened tramp." i think anyone who's been really lonely can empathize with Jane Hudson. Do you also recollect the actor who played the son of Rossano Brazzi? You recently saw him in a comedy with another blonde. > Oh, yeah? She was very good in *Summertime*. She was rather sexy. > I think so. I loved her easy confidence. Very Italian. > Believe it or not, I think we actually like similar romance films. > I fall for the sappiest of them, I admit. I even admit to liking *Love Story*. > That shocks me, actually. It seems like you've seen everything! At least films as big as those. But I do know you're not a fan of war films. > It was funny the other night *Kwai* was on, maybe it was last night? Anyway, I had it on and I kept hesitating whether to just sit and watch or to put in a DVD. Every time it comes on, I see a few scenes, I'm completely impressed, yet I dread the idea of watching the whole thing. I probably need to see it in a theater with an audience. I was watching these mysteries I like with Tom Selleck, and his character is a big fan of that movie. He tells people about it and they have no idea what he's talking about. I actually think you'd probably like it. It's definitely not what I'd call a "war movie". It's purely a psychological battle of wills between Sessue Hayakawa and Obi Wan Kanobi. Holden is on hand in a key part doing what he does best, playing cynical. > *Doctor Zhivago is magnificent* > > I know it's a great favorite of yours and I believe Jackie doesn't like it much. I'm curious to know the reasons. I may have to get it. > Many dislike it, it's considered "over blown" and then the music has been played at so many weddings and put in so many music boxes, people got sick of it. But I grew up with it, coming on television once a year like *Gone with the Wind*, *The Wizard of Oz* and *The Sound of Music*. I think though it is certainly an epic, Lean never loses his focus on the main characters. They are all so human, so three dimensional and their stories never feel "symbolic" which sometimes characters in epics can seem. They don't represent anyone but themselves, that's the point of the original novel, though Lean certainly plays up the romance. Fine with me. > I actually don't have that one. I always considered getting the DVD but it's always expensive when I look. > You should just record it next time it airs on TCM. It's a retelling of Madame Bovary. > I like seeing Lean films, so I'll watch that this weekend. > Good. I should re-visit it myself. I believe kingrat is also fond of *The Passionate Friends*.

> That makes sense. I was thinking of how similar and how different the gangster genre and westerns are. They are mostly masculine films that take place in one kind of environment with women playing complementary roles. Where they are vastly different is the focus. The gangster film is about the outlaw who seeks power. The western is usually about stopping such men. > Yes, that's all pretty apt. After all westerns were set in the past (traditional) and gangster films were usually "ripped from the headlines". > I'd say anything with the gardenia. All of those moments are wonderful. I loved the scene where Jane (Katharine Hepburn) returns to the shop just to see him. > It's a great scene. I like Isa Miranda as Signora Fiorini. I laughed when she said all Americans eat "pills". Ha!!! I recently learned Miranda was the heroine of Ophuls *La signora di tutti*, a movie I'm dying to see. > I have only seen three of his films, but I have definitely loved his ability to convey a longing for love. That's right in my hot zone. So I'm really liking Lean. > That's an interesting thing to say about him because it's probably the reason I'm drawn to his romantic films. The only two I have yet to see start to finish are the two that lack any romantic story, *Lawrence of Arabia* and *The Bridge Over the River Kwai*. I have seen most of Lawrence, though, practically all of it. I prefer his focus on men and women. *Doctor Zhivago* is magnificent and *Ryan's Daughter* is quite fascinating. Mitchum was never...more different. He's somewhat like he was in *Two For the Sea Saw*. You'd really, really like his character. I recommend *The Passionate Friends*, one of his least appreciated but most interesting. It doesn't hurt that Claude Raines is superb in it, and Ann Todd plays the sort of ice princess you seem to like.

> So what is it about gangster films that makes them less interesting to you. > I think it's because I'm not really into stories about guys who seek to head up a "pack" or a "gang", I prefer individuals. So what was your favorite scene in Summertime? Do you like Lean's work so far?

> I didn't know you liked it. What others do you like? > I like *The Public Enemy*, of course *High Sierra* is my favorite and maybe *Out of the Fog* could be considered a borederline gangster movie though it focuses more on the targets than the perpetrator. I'd say it's just not a genre that interests me all that much unless it really focuses on an individual and shows some humanity. And of course, I like the gangster send-up, *The Little Giant*. > I even laugh when he's deadly serious! He's almost a caricature. > I think I resent that! Cagney's a very good screen actor. > *However, I absolutely adored Charles Coburn in this. He is priceless, just priceless.* > > He's the best thing about the film, actually. He's on top of his game. Not to mention: > > > Do you mean his mutton chops? > You're not a shy one! This outfit caught my eye: > > > That's cute!

"The rags of his pants are beating him to death." That has got to be one of the all-time coldest lines I've ever "seen". And I don't think I ever caught it before, so thank you for posting that. I can't wait to watch *The Roaring Twenties* again, it's one of the very few gangster movies I really like. Not only me! Lots of folks here like Cagney's 'thirties movies, especially the ones with Blondell. They're fun. But over his gangster films? I doubt that. But then he was always playing a "mug" of some sort even in the non-gangster movies of the thirties. A street guy. But fun, and funny (to me). He had a great sense of humor, I thought. He really is. I like the masculinity that is found in his romantic comedies. Seeing Maurice with all that lipstick on it was tough to spot it, but you're right. I think Lubitsch, like Hitchcock, dreamed through his leading men. He'd like to have been those carefree playboys. I see. I love it when Leon says if that the dress just had to meet Ninotchka. And when he sent her the goats milk in the bouquet of flowers. His note made me laugh. What did his note say? I forget. Something about how he took Gaston (his butler) to the market and this was all he could get for him. I liked Melvyn, but Maurice is still the best. But I'm one who loves Maurice's ham and cheese. French cheese, bien sur. He was ideal, for sure. Very continental, very light touch and wolfish. I found it to be very boring. I liked the end the best. I also enjoyed Gene. I liked the kind of woman she played. Yes, I admit I found it dull too, which pains me to say about Lubitsch. I've read some brilliant things about it, I just haven't responded to it. I usually blame the stuffiness of that world Van Cleve lives in. It's too much. However, I absolutely adored Charles Coburn in this. He is priceless, just priceless. I thought you were wearing it this season, non? Only Greta can get away with wearing it. If this were a hat wearing time, I prefer hats like the funny ones Gene wears in *Laura*.

I never thought about that...I'll have to pay more attention to Frankenheimer. He was smart enough to know that just keeping the camera on Burt moving around was good cinema. I think this is only my third movie I've seen by him...the other two being *The Manchurian Candidate* and *Seven Days in May*. I'm probably overlooking some others.

> Oh, there's no helping you, Blondle. > Don't I know it. Bet I could make Freud jump out the window. > Yes, what she wrote was superb. She really captured the essence of the Walsh men that I have seen. > It makes me appreciate his films better. > *He does concentrate all his power onto one idea, making his characters explosive. He's a ticking bomb. He does self-destructive rather well. But I also like his breezier movies, like Blonde Crazy and* *Taxi.* > > > Only you! > Not only me! Lots of folks here like Cagney's 'thirties movies, especially the ones with Blondell. They're fun. > > > > > That's what I need: a house that does it's own housework! > I was talking about the Beast! > And I began the comparison with *The Picture of Dorian Gray*. > I don't know what else to say! I just liked seeing her lose herself over Leon (Melvyn Douglas). I thought it was wonderful to see her coming to life. > Lubitsch did those scene beautifully and really quite sensitively. He's the best. > But I love the women with "hairpins" who slowly remove them. > I see. I love it when Leon says if that the dress just had to meet Ninotchka. And when he sent her the goats milk in the bouquet of flowers. His note made me laugh. I love his butler. "It's not that I mind your not paying me the last four months, but that I should have to share half my income with you!" hahahaaa! Leon really is a gigolo. He's very much like the Chevalier characters, and of course, like Van Cleve (Don Ameche) in *Heaven Can Wait*. The playboy. You didn't like that one as much? It's not my favorite, either. > It's the scene I liked the very most in the film; her curiosity over this hat. How she viewed it as something wrong yet she was so drawn to being wrong, being free of her chains. > And it really is an absurd looking hat.

ha! I'm not sure if the movie is saying all that, I just went off in one of my tangents. I confess I was more focused on watching Burt move around than anything else.

> It starts off fairly quickly. Once Ginger gets inside that office, it moves pretty good. > > > Ha! That one's pretty good. I need a shrink like Fred Astaire! > She was crazy for him but he was crazy for Jean (Priscilla Lane). He purely liked Panama as a friend. When he was fawning over Jean, Panama was dying a thousand deaths. > I love what Jackie wrote about how Eddie and Roy Earle as well as other Walsh men. I never fully appreciated how many of his heroes are out of step with the times, that they are outliving their time. So many of the directors of that era touched on this, when you think about it. Is anyone doing that now? Eastwood, maybe? I don't know. > That's an excellent observation. Cagney really does put that over better than anyone. Once he latches onto something, that's what it's all about. > He does concentrate all his power onto one idea, making his characters explosive. He's a ticking bomb. He does self-destructive rather well. But I also like his breezier movies, like *Blonde Crazy* and *Taxi*. > And us boring ugly guys are really out of luck! You just liked that he kept saying he was your servant! > I don't even remember that. > And she fails! We have to die before you love us! > That makes no sense...Sybil was the one who died! > I'm not sure. Maybe I'm getting used to him more. He's the most "Stooges" of the three, so that attracts me. > I agree with Movieman, he's the most childlike of the three, the innocent "fool". > *What about Ninotchka? * > > > I thought it was quite lovely. I thought she was quite lovely. I loved how she was all about learning and efficiency. It was great to see that kind of woman paired with a lazy playboy. > We want to know more! I'm glad you liked her, that surprises me. I thought her character might seem too cold for you. Those screencaps are from a lovely moment. Greta was exceptional at such scenes, introspective moments. Did you catch the reference to her classic line, "I want to be alone?", which people always imitated (she had said it in Grand Hotel)? The boys ask her if she wants to be alone and she's "No." I love how Lubitsch gets in references like that.

> People have been killed or maimed in mad rushes to buy discounted goods on Black Thursdays. I doubt the toymakers and electronics importers lose any sleep over it. Sansfin, Sadly that is very true. Humans often view human life as one of the most expendable "commodities" of all.

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}*. It would just apall me that even one life could be lost over anything I made. And I consider myself an artist and an art lover.* > > But the art itself can't be blamed nor I imagine the artist given the intent of the work. If everything was done based on how someone reacted to it then nothing would ever be done or created. I appreciate the sensitivity to the consequence of it but to deprive the world of the one thing that can unite people, would it not be the greater loss? > It's an issue of belief. I wasn't placing blame anywhere, just questioning ideologies that place more value on what a man produces than on the man himself, whether an artist or even a train conductor. Some of those very artists whose paintings were at stake could have been in concentration camps or otherwise victims of the war if they were in the wrong time and place. Which would the majority strive to save...the artists or their paintings? One wonders. My meaning was that I would destroy my paintings because I would want to make it clear that I value life---which means my ability to create---more than what I created, which is just paint on canvas. You can re-create paint on canvas. No human being can resurrect a dead man. To me, no single human life could ever be of less value than all the art ever created. > I find the idea that during both wars anyone would not program Beethoven or Mozart or Schubert or whoever because they were German and wrote their music 100 or so years prior to the wars as baffling as the way the great works of art were handled by the Germans. To what end would the public be deprived of the glory of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony or Bach's Cantatas? Music and art are among the things that moves the human heart. It would be just as tragic to lose something you created because others are evil. I agree with all of that. Art has been the saving of me in many ways, though not in the ultimate sense. For me this all begs the question would you save Beethoven or his symphonies? I just can't help but reduce the argument down to its bare bones. Maybe some who gave their lives up in war had greater talents than Beethoven or Renoir put together though they never realized them. Again, the loss of a mind and spirit capable of creating or even just appreciating art is the greater loss to me. The ideas that foment war ultimately are based on valuing something material (or power) over the deliberate taking of human life. Who knew this movie would make me think so hard, yikes, I don't think I like The Train so much anymore.

> I guess that's what they call a "trope" of the movies and literature - that the artistic guy is always the one who cares most about life, he's a hero, a sensitive. I find it hilarious that Frankenheimer turns it all around, the manual laborer is the more sensitive about humanity than the art lover. He also makes the big dumb train conductor the one who decides to save all the art! It's not even the main character and he's certainly not the brightest one of the bunch, this conductor who takes it into his head to save "France's art heritage". > That's fascinating...I never heard of a "trope" before, I learned something today! > Nothing in this movie follows the standard plot contrivances. In fact, Burt is reluctant to do anything at all to save the artwork for quite a long time. Are collectors perfect Nazis, who think they are better than everyone because they've got a little knowledge? Maybe they do deserve to live outside of the rules, because they can appreciate? I think we see that sometimes in classic movie buffs..... I've probably said something along these lines myself at some point or another. > Knowledge vs. love. Knowledge inflates the ego, while love instills confidence in all. It never fails to be true and it seldom fails that people strive harder for the knowledge than to love one another or that they often hide their true motives behind things like "beauty and art is only for the privileged few". It's always about who can they exclude, set themselves above. > One thing that does fit the usual type - Colonel Von Waldheim is an equal opportunity megalomaniac - he doesn't care what side you belong to, he'll kill the French or eventually his own men in order to get that train into Germany. And I don't think it was for the Reich either.... somewhere along the way it became HIS train, HIS artwork, HIS ego... I thought by the end he was going to try and take the train for himself alone. > Brilliant! I believe the Colonel would have set himself above Hitler had he come across his path. He was a rogue Nazi, not a follower. There was no room for individuality in the Reich and he was bound to end badly. > In some ways this battle, which he did not choose, which he was too sane for, actually made him a "hero", do things he would not have done. But was he a "better" man at the end of the film? Did he do it for country, or to avenge his friends who thought they should die for their country's heritage? Were they right to make the sacrifice? Part of me says yes, but part of me says nothing is worth it. > In theory the Colonel and the train conductor, Papa Boule, I think he was called, were following the same idea, and each was as blind as the other, in a way. They got fixed on an idea. The Colonel's was about superiority and Papa's was "the legacy of France". Both end up dead and humanity doesn't seem to have learned anything from the paintings or the sacrifices, except how to build bigger, better weapons.

I think you would really like *The Wedding Night*. It starts out rather light then gets more tragic by the end. Let me know what you think of it when you've seen it.

Her southern accent (she was from Texas) makes her sound even badder! One movie where she plays a similar character to Kay's, but with much more sympathy, is *The Wedding Night*, with Gary Cooper.

Oh yes, Helen Vinson, she along with Hillary Brooke made great instigators in a lot of movies.

I do like *In Name Only* and always have, and it's as you say, for the actors. I don't like Kay's character, she's really unredeeming. I would like to have seen it a more human portrayal, some lingering sympathy or love for her husband. Instead, they seem to make her so mean in order to justify Cary's adultery. A very Hollywood trick that is laid a little too bare in this one. Still, I admit I do like some things about it.

I'm overwhelmed by your wonderful words about *The Roaring Twenties*, Jackie! That was the best thing I ever read on it and the characters...and Walsh! Better than that biography, I bet! I wish I could write more, but I'm entangled in major computer problems so I'm reading mostly these days; I wish I had the energy and time to post. Keep it up!