MissGoddess

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}Burt has nice hands. > > sigh > you can say that again! > I like this movie for Scofield's performance, since I think this is one of his few baddies. He's usually very sympathetic to me, if a little cerebral, as you cleverly pointed out, so I enjoyed hating him in The Train. > I thought his character was going to be more sympathetic in the beginning, but I was fooled even as that museum curator was, who thought his fine art appreciation meant he had a spark of human feeling. It's interesting how he does talk in an extreme way how many in that art world really think, they do believe they are special and above the very people they claim all that art was being preserved for. but they're never the ones who actually paint the paintings! I kept thinking, if I'd been one of those artists and knew what had happened over my paintings, when I had the chance I would find those paintings and destroy every single one of them. 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. Yes, this movie was very thought provoking. > There does seem to be a statement being made in this movie about those who DO and those who can only order others to do. Scofield always seems to be one step behind everyone, even those he looks down on. I think he actually has an inferiority complex, and that's why he feels he has to beat them, especially Lancaster. Well, who wouldn't have an inferiority complex next to Burt? Anyway, Scofield is always relying on his underlings to take care of those ambushes and sometimes, one gets a glint of how much the underlings despise and maybe even pity him. > He seemed to have gone mad. I don't know how much was an obsession with the art or with being able to tell his superiors he'd succeeded in such a daring mission. His words with the officer from whom he needed the go ahead were that he'd learned from him that "going through channels" was not for men like him. He was kind of a rogue leader yet he expected total and blind obedience from not just his own men, but even that battalion of wounded that were being moved out. I like when their officer came running up and basically sent him to heck if he thought they were going to leave any of his wounded on the road for a bunch of paintings.

A heist movie in reverse---that's a great description! And yes, that's exactly the scene I was referring to---if I had it on DVD I'd replay it over and over! I wish Lancaster and Scofield had more scenes together, I like those battle of wits with well-matched adversaries, too. What's interesting is Scofield's character is portrayed as all mind and Burt's was very physical, for contrast. I actually liked the officer who served under Scofield, he was cute and had more sense than his boss.

That featurette always made me curious to see *The Train*, if only for that one stunt. Burt also did a jump off the moving train, which could be a lot more dangerous. I'm guessing he must have been pushing 50 when this movie was made, so all the physical work that went into his part is really remarkable. I admit I was impressed. And I like the drama of Frankenheimer's direction. He knows how to amp up a scene. It wasn't my favorite Burt Lancaster movie, but I'm glad I watched.

Jackie, I watched a movie the other evening that I believe you've said you like: *The Train*. it was the first time I'd seen it. It was pretty good. The ending...well, the whole premise really...kind of made me think. Can all those lives lost be justified for a bunch of paintings? Paul Scofield was good, this is only the second thing I've seen him do (I've seen parts of A Man For All Seasons). But I couldn't take my eyes off of Burt. It was great seeing him repair that train...I could watch him do that for hours. He still had it in 1965.

> I obviously have to watch Rope again, I didn't remember Jimmy Stewart being the cause of the problem with his lectures or book or whatever. I think Jimmy is so naturally friendly-seeming that I never noticed the darker plot implications of his espoused ideas, I just noticed the obvious stuff like the way they hid the body. I do know that some people don't think that he was right for the part, that a James Mason might have been better. You ought to watch *Rope* again, it might surprise you. Jimmy's "Rupert" says: "Murder is an art, and as such the privilege of committing it should be reserved for those few who are really superior individuals."

Yes! I love the beast, he was wonderful! Belle needed to find a way to reverse the spell again.

That's really great! I always thought Mollot was the real evil one, not Dorian. He's always proved right, which is the kind of thing I can't stand - he really is monstrous! In fact, as good as Sanders is, I find his performance amazingly hard to watch, he's got nothing redeeming about him, speaking of redemption stories. Not one thing. Sanders is absolutely faultless in his portrayal though. He's definitely worse, as the by-standing instigator always is. George is perfect for such a role, he manages to make it seem these characters were created specifically for him. I really is like James Stewart's "Rupert" from *Rope*. The kind who spout ideas and then are shocked when they see the results of their 'students' following through on them.

> {quote:title=butterscotchgreer wrote:}{quote}Sorry Dahlink, I fell asleep on you last night. I was so sleepy! > Me, too! It was much too late for me to be up. > Sir Tristan, yes. I find it interesting that in the novel, she called him "Prince Charming," however, in the movie, she called him Sir Tristan. I always wondered why she called him that, but I think it has to do with her having loved fictionall romance on the stage before she fell in love with Dorian. After that, she felt no need to play on stage anymore, because he was her prince charming. her dreams felt complete. > Very well said. I didn't remember about his name in the novel. Maybe they wanted to be more specific with "Tristan". It goes in hand with the captivity idea, of being caged, since that essentially happened to Iseult, if I understood the story correctly. > You know, that's very true! awesome point! You won't see any other show girl with her characteristics in other films. She was a show girl, purely to fantasize about deep romance, not to show off or crave attantion in the spotlight, as other show girls would. I do think her mother would have done just that to her. I don't think she was loved as a child, but neither was Dorian, just in a different kind of way. > I don't remember, was Dorian without parents? Did they die when he was young? Nothing is said about them but one could say, based on his personality and circumstances, that he was given material advantages and education, but no love, no warmth. > He was just too much of a narcissist. Although, he began to feel for his life after Sibyl's death, because her brother promised revenge, that wasn't even enough. One begins to wonder what would be enough! > > What do you think would have happened, had he not killed himself? How do you think he would have handled it in a different situation? > Handled what? I expect he'd have been killed by one of the many enemies he'd made. > SIGH!! Was that my phone call? I hope not! I'm sorry if it was! Dearly!! If I happen to call you when you are watching a movie, tell me to hang up and call back. After all, our movies are more important! heehee! > oh for goodness sake, no! it was a friend who ended up coming to visit later so we could have said all we said in person! but you know how we girls are when we start gabbing.

> {quote:title=butterscotchgreer wrote:}{quote}Sorry Dahlink, I fell asleep on you last night. I was so sleepy! > Me, too! It was much too late for me to be up. > Sir Tristan, yes. I find it interesting that in the novel, she called him "Prince Charming," however, in the movie, she called him Sir Tristan. I always wondered why she called him that, but I think it has to do with her having loved fictionall romance on the stage before she fell in love with Dorian. After that, she felt no need to play on stage anymore, because he was her prince charming. her dreams felt complete. > Very well said. I didn't remember about his name in the novel. Maybe they wanted to be more specific with "Tristan". It goes in hand with the captivity idea, of being caged, since that essentially happened to Iseult, if I understood the story correctly. > You know, that's very true! awesome point! You won't see any other show girl with her characteristics in other films. She was a show girl, purely to fantasize about deep romance, not to show off or crave attantion in the spotlight, as other show girls would. I do think her mother would have done just that to her. I don't think she was loved as a child, but neither was Dorian, just in a different kind of way. > I don't remember, was Dorian without parents? Did they die when he was young? Nothing is said about them but one could say, based on his personality and circumstances, that he was given material advantages and education, but no love, no warmth. > He was just too much of a narcissist. Although, he began to feel for his life after Sibyl's death, because her brother promised revenge, that wasn't even enough. One begins to wonder what would be enough! > > What do you think would have happened, had he not killed himself? How do you think he would have handled it in a different situation? > Handled what? I expect he'd have been killed by one of the many enemies he'd made. > SIGH!! Was that my phone call? I hope not! I'm sorry if it was! Dearly!! If I happen to call you when you are watching a movie, tell me to hang up and call back. After all, our movies are more important! heehee! > oh for goodness sake, no! it was a friend who ended up coming to visit later so we could have said all we said in person! but you know how we girls are when we start gabbing.

> I highly doubt a Fred & Ginger fan would rank *Carefree* too highly because it doesn't feature the lavish settings and dance numbers. It's more of a straight-forward comedy. The film mostly takes place in a shrink's office, a golf course, and a firing range. Not very fancy. > I don't care about that, it was the pacing I remember. I waited for laughs that didn't come, but it may be I wasn't in the mood. I like Fred and Ginger enough not to mind about settings. I'd like to see it again. > She cuts him down and then he wants to badly show she is wrong and she leaves before he's finished. > Classic screwball misunderstanding and timing. > Really? He was good! And funny! > He's so down to earth to me, it's hard to think of him as an intellectual. If I remember correctly, the movie does have one of my favorites songs, "Baubles, Bangles and Beads". > Gladys George was so wonderful. She's a big reason why I really liked the film. Panama (Gladys) was so in love with Eddie (James Cagney). She'd go anywhere with him. > She was brilliant! So heart wrenching. And so loyal. She and Eddie, both reaching for the moon. > I've been okay with Cagney. I can't say I've gone for him yet, but I haven't had any issues with him. I thought he was at his best in the film when he was a total mess. > He's great. He's marvelous at showing men with a fixed idea, a single minded determination. > > *Well, interestingly, a lot of people don't like how the story ends. * > > Oh, yeah? I didn't know that. > A lot of girls wish the beast had remained such...he was more attractive than the boring handsome guy! > It is all of that. I greatly enjoyed the look of the Beast. I really like the faith and trust he shows in Belle. > It's a marvelous tale about love and honor. Interestingly, here is another in which a woman's love is tested (as in Dorian Gray). > ** I liked all of that stuff. Lots of "over-the-top." The running gag with the collection agency guy was fantastic. This film was the first where I enjoyed all three of the brothers' talents and what they brought to the table. The breakfast table! > it's often the same situation in every movie, with little tweaks here and there with the settings. you must see *duck soup*, though, and *horse feathers*. just hilarious! so what made you like Harpo more in this one? What about Ninotchka?

> If I hadn't watched *Carefree* after I recommended it I probably would have guessed that one better. It's hard to see a film from someone else's eyes. Were you surprised by *In Name Only* coming in last? yes, asking someone what their favorites are is easy. asking someone what they think your favorites are is another story. it requires some thought and not just about yourself but about another person. it's also a test of how much you pay attention. i obviously don't! I was surprised *In Name Only* was dead last, though I figured it might land on the low side. It's a very conventional story in ways I don't suppose a twisty film noirista would like, ha!

> I think I liked it the most of everyone who posted! > ha! I really need to see it again. I think I just found the pace a bit off and it wasn't that funny to me. But it's been years since I watched it. > Yes. She's looking to kill Fred at the end. I loved the scene where he's showing off his golf shots to her and he turns around, so full of himself, and she's not there. That's classic! Women! > I do remember the golf scene. > > The film plays more like a straight comedy, which is more to my liking. I also liked the screwy setting. Plus he's a shrink. > I think I found it hard to believe Fred as a shrink. > Well, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. *The Roaring Twenties* is basically *High Sierra* before *High Sierra*. It's almost exactly the same film. The ending is spectacular. > It is one of the best endings, ever. It gets me every time. Is it safe to say you tolerated Cagney a little better this time? > I was into *La Belle et Le Bete* until the end. The entire look of the film is sensational. That was a big draw for me. > Well, interestingly, a lot of people don't like how the story ends. It is one of the most ravishing films. I like that it perfectly captures a fairytale world. It's very magical. > I loved the screwiness of the film. I was dying over the doggone turkey. Harpo really registered with me in this one, much more so than the other two films I've seen. The film played more like a Three Stooges short with the bonus of Groucho. Lucy really didn't do a thing for me in the film. > > > I liked that the film didn't feature a lot of the high society stuff. > The turkey is hilarious. It looks like *The Giant Claw*. I guess that's where they got it! Wasn't the hotel manager played by Fred Clark? It's always funny when the boys try to put something over a character like that. The way they made the young man act sick was pretty funny, too. He was so naive.

> Ha! Was that one of Frank's quizzes? Did he tell you how badly I did on the actress quiz? I panicked as the time was expiring and starting writing down Gene Tierney over and over. I don't know why either. > ha! I did okay on the directors and actresses quizzes he made. Did he make a film noir one? I can't remember how I did on that. I took one on westerns tonight (not by Frank) and did shamefully! > I know! I want to reply to Jackie later tonight or tomorrow on *Strange Cargo* but I want to take a look at some scenes again because of what she brought up in her post. I also want to know what Frank's film ranking are going to be. He stumped me again with his rankings. He certainly liked *Carefree* way more than I thought. now i have to clear it up in my mind, is *Carefree* the one where Ginger gets hypnotized by Fred?

wow! a gangster movie that finally registered with you. i never would have guessed it, either. you liked *high sierra*, too, so I guess you prefer Walsh with gangster material. Wow, *Room Service* above La Belle et Le Bete. :0 Was it Lucy and the boys or did you find it truly funny? I like *Room Service* mainly for seeing Lucy with them.

> Fred is a pretty likable guy. > I love his wry sense of humor. He's also a great teaser. > BTW, > > *How to Marry a Millionaire* was the first Marilyn Monroe film I ever saw. I was about ten and it was on the late show. Even then I felt for her because of her insecurity with the glasses and she made me laugh as well. She was what I really remembered after watching that film. Even then, at ten years old. It's another favorite of mine and now I appreciate it for a lot of different reasons. that's very sweet. i'm not sure if this or *gentlemen prefer blondes* was the first MM film I saw. I tend to think of the two in tandem. she really shows a unique comic flair in the scenes with the glasses. it's brilliant in the restaurant when she starts walking off with the waiter thinking it's Blinky.

> oh really?! APRIL!!! Would you like to help with this one? please!! > He's trying to confuse us and trap us. I don't even think he's seen any of the movies he listed. Did you notice the suspicious lack of screencaps? He always posts screencaps when he really watched a movie. Where is detective Rohanaka? She'd soon ferret the truth out of him! In the mean time, we'll just have him stare into the eyes of the Egyptian cat statue.

> what's funny about that?! we are all in complete shock by this statement! i thought i would be dead before you would admit such a thing. Lol! That was hilarious! I think he must be drunk to have said such a thing. Or he's trying to trap us.

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*Gee whiz! Molo, did you see that? Where's rohanaka? FrankGrimes saying he liked Fred Astaire makes me fear all the ropes have thawed out and someplace else froze!* > > That was funny!It was a shocking confession! Baby T's strangling is working at last. I'm glad you liked Fred. I adore him so.

> *the setting mostly. you're a snob about Europe!* > > > But I like European settings, Snob! > Since when?! you never said that before. We are talking about the same thing? I said settings, not ladies. > *because i like romantic and glamorous and you don't!* > > > I like romantic! Glamorous... not so much. > Well?! > No, Silly Goose! You were off more than that! But I love that you always guess. > then your "spots" are ridiculous! i don't understand them. > You know, I don't know. I've never seen it. > Really? I believe it was their first color film. I'm not sure if I'd like it now. > *which one was that?!* > > > James Arness! He's the only one in the cast that I knew. > oh, that suit! yes, that's my big Jim. i still can't believe he's gone. > Good point. He's very charming in an American way. > that's very vague! > Almost everything is subtle. It's all said and done in passing. > i think it takes such skill to do that. i can't think of another director who is as consistently good at that. many have their moments, but Lubitsch hits just the right note most of the time. > Really? No, I didn't notice this. I'll have to check that out. > i wonder if anyone else noticed it. he has a soft expression, very human. it could also be because we see the portrait in color, while dorian himself is always seen in black and white (colder). > You noticed their apartments?! Only you! Brandon was more despicable to me. > I noticed everything was impeccable, in its place, perfect. > Really? I would have never known that. It's certainly not shown in the film. The girls he is with are very much good girls. > they are both very angelic. and they suffered from the same human foible that went to an extreme with Dorian: they judged by appearance. he thought youth and beauty was all and they believed he was as beautiful in soul as he looked. Gladys (donna reed) knew him from childhood, yet she never really 'saw' him. > > > That's a wonderful observation. You're right on. The politician had to put his foot down, but only so far. So was this a sign of weakness or respect for the host? > The fact that the camera shows the politician looking longingly at the food piled on the table seems to indicate he was giving in to his desires, just as Mollot believed we all do.

> Okay, I promise not to spring any pop quizzes on you for a while? > i just flunked a film noir quiz horribly! that will teach me to mix quizzes and rambles. i kept trying to put *the picture of dorian gray* down as a film noir. > I was actually thinking of *The Devil and Daniel Webster* but I forgot to mention it. I should be watching *The Long Voyage Home* pretty soon. > that would be lovely. i think you will find the characters quite interesting. it's a true ensemble cast and gorgeously photographed. > Hey I thought we agreed. No questions! > Oops! > Irena is a great choice, I can't believe I missed that one. She's one of my favorite characters. > Poor little kitty. > *Yes, I'd better stop now! * > > Okay, maybe we can pick this up again at a later date. I can keep going, I just didn't want to monopolize. it's a wonderful discussion...one of many right now!

> Oh, but dribbling is a good thing, hence the creation of your rambles thread. i should only hope to dribble as well as you one day! > that's mighty kind of you to say! maybe my next thread should be entitled "dribbles". > "Sibyl' is one of my top 100 favorite characters! I love her innocence. It is so different from the other characters Angel has ever played. But I don't think she knew she was being prophetic, ironically. She was just in search of an adventure in her life. The true meaning of happiness. Dorian was selfish in this way. He smothered her. > I agree she was unaware of any impending doom. She thought she'd found her dream prince, her, as she calls him, Sir Tristam, wasn't it? A knight in shining armor. And then he basely is called by that name later on, in fact it is the name that tipped off her brother who Dorian really was. I thought she was a remarkable girl, not the usual portrayal of a show girl. In fact, she was the innocent one and her parents, her mother particularly, were rather conniving. You get the feeling her mother would have sold Sybil out for the first man with money who came along. > That's a really interesting question to fathom. you know, i don't think he would have done anything differently. He was blinded heavily by his selfishness. Even when he had his moment of self-discovery, by unveling the painting, you could still see the "coldness" as you perfectly put it in his eyes. I don't think he ever would have cared about Sibyl (for example) the way he should have or she even wanted him to. I also don't hink he could have loved himself as he should. True, he was self-centered, but he didn't know the meaning of love. > PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY SPOILER That was excellent and I think I agree. I mean, if he knew he'd end up old and ugly anyway, then he might think twice, but the consequences to other people alone would not be enough of a deterrent. > *I thought Gladys was sweet, but I confess that I was distracted the last time I watched the movie during most of her scenes.* > > distracted by what? A phone call! I hate to be rude and rush people off but sometimes they call right when I'm watching something...and I remember when *The Picture of Dorian Gray* came on, I had just gotten about 30 minutes into it when a friend called and we talked until almost the very end of the film. It was then I regretted not having recorded it. I've seen it before of course, but I wanted a refresher.

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*Seriously, you deserve a lot of credit for just trying these films out. You did like some of the Fred and Ginger films though, didn't you? At least parts of them?* > > Yes, very much so. They are entertaining. And you have proven to be right, I enjoy Fred. Gee whiz! Molo, did you see that? Where's rohanaka? FrankGrimes saying he liked Fred Astaire makes me fear all the ropes have thawed out and someplace else froze!

> That's probably my bravest step, thus far. For me to own their box set is something I would have never guessed of myself. > the act of a desperate movie watcher! > > *i confess I thought you could go either way on several, mostly on the "not like" side. with Summertime I took a gamble on your liking Kate's performance a lot, even though I can't see it being your kind of movie at all.* > > > So why would it not be my kind of film? > the setting mostly. you're a snob about Europe! > I've noticed that with you. If you really like a film, you usually expect me to not like it. > because i like romantic and glamorous and you don't! > > *I'll never understand your rankings! What does that mean?* > > > It's how far you were off on your guesses. If you guessed a film to be #5 and I have it at #8, it's "3 spots" off. > so i was two places off from most of them? that's better than i usually do. > Yes, that's the film. I figured it was that one because I don't see you as that big of a fan of Abbott & Costello. > is that the one about jack and the beanstalk? i liked that one as a kid. > I definitely know you are not into sci-fi, hence my surprise in your liking the film. > so many other sci-fi movies tried to capture that camaraderie but they fail. the 'chemistry' of this one is just right, you might say. > *Love all the character actors that I've seen in a thousand movies and TV shows.* > > > I only knew of the guy in the suit! > which one was that?! > I think you hit on it perfectly. Doulgas does play "lazy" really well. My kind of guy! > his warmth also plays well with the (initial) dourness of Greta's Ninotchka. > It's amazing how he jams so much into his film without you ever noticing. It's hardly ever obtrusive. > so true. he comments on a thousand personal and universal things and I'm so busy laughing I often can't take it all in. > That's because Lauren is playing you! > No way, I only wish I had her confidence. She's a leader, what they now would call an "alpha female". That's not me. Not unless all the other girls were ten times dopier than the ones in the movie. > That's a wonderful description. He really is a living painting. He has the same look at all times. > that's perfect, he is the painting, only did you notice that his original portrait makes him look kindlier than he did in real life? > Ah, yes, Brandon (John Dall). I didn't think of the similarity between the two of them, but you are right. > maybe not in personality, but in appearance (style, presentation) and they both had these perfect apartments and of course in how they thought. Dall was more dynamic, though. > He's very much sexless. *Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde* is about how we men have to put forth our gentleman appearance while hiding our sexual desires. *The Picture of Dorian Gray* is about one's vanity and soul. > The book is also about sexual appetite but not specifically. In the movie, sexual depravity is pretty much lumped in with all the major sins which Dorian systematically explores. > Bad events are merely challenges for you. They are not about the other persons affected, it's about you. > Well said. I thought a very interesting scene, with Mollot (Sanders), was the dinner party. It was VERY much like the one in *Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde*, where the protagonist's ideas are explained. Did you notice the politician's reaction? How at first he stood up, pretended to be outraged and about to leave? Then Mollot just watched, waiting to see if his hunch that this man was nothing but a phoney hypocrite like the rest, would be proven true. And it was. The man was tempted by the feast (he was a fat glutton) and the company. Mollot looks so supremely, cynically satisfied. Mollot is really the "mad scientist" and Dorian his Frankenstein's monster. > > *Oh please.* > > > Oh, no! Not another "F," Teach! >

You know something just occurred to me, Jackie. If I had to choose whether to be alone in a room with Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre, Strange Cargo) or Dorian Gray, I'd take my chances with Piggy. Edited by: MissGoddess on Feb 17, 2012 10:45 PM

> I'm trying! This is why I like watching the favorites of others. It's going to help me out. > If having a grasp of a broad range of classics is your aim, you sure are hitting the mark. I still can't believe you watched more than one Astaire/Rogers flick. i confess I thought you could go either way on several, mostly on the "not like" side. with *Summertime* I took a gamble on your liking Kate's performance a lot, even though I can't see it being your kind of movie at all. the only one I felt reasonably sure you would like was *Thieves Highway*. My lack of interest in it is reason enough! > I'm not going to reveal how I liked them in case others wish to guess. You didn't hit any on the nose. Here's how you scored: > > > 1 spot (2) > 2 spots (2) > 3 spots (2) > 4 spots (2) > 5 spots (2) > 6 spots (2) > 8 spots (2) > 9 spots > 11 spots > 12 spots (2) > 13 spots (2) > I'll never understand your rankings! What does that mean? > Did I watch the right "Little Giant"? I've been trying to watch your top 50 list of all-time favorites that you posted a good three years ago and this title was on your list. > If it's the Edward G. Robinson/Mary Astor movie, yes. I enjoyed it so much! I'm not a fan of gangster movies as a rule, so this little send-up quite charmed me and seemed like one of those movies most people overlook. > > I didn't realize you like *The Thing from Another World* that much. I'm surprised *Carefree* ranks so lowly. I'm guessing it's because there isn't much dancing and the romance is silly. I certainly wouldn't have guessed you liking *The Picture of Dorian Gray* so much. I mostly knew your feelings on the other films with the exception of *In Name Only*. > > TTFAW is another that I seem to have watched countless times since childhood, only not intentionally. Yet every time it's on, I'm fascinated and totally drawn into it. That's pretty rare with a sci-fi. It definitely feels completely "Hawksian", so if Nyby directed every scene, he seemed to have copied Howard or taken every single suggestion he made. All the by-play between the characters and the "romance" are far more interesting than the science fiction, and yet that aspect is very well represented, especially the "mad" scientist who often makes a lot of sense. Love all the character actors that I've seen in a thousand movies and TV shows. > Really? There's no way I would have guessed that. > About Ninotchka being an old favorite? It used to be practically my all time favorite (after GWTW, of course). and I guess I must like Melvyn Douglas in his role because I have no problem with his casting (he's frequently an obstacle for many). Cary Grant was suggested but for some reason the role was given to Douglas. I think Douglas plays "lazy" convincingly. I just love his brief exchanges with his butler. Lubitsch's send-up of political philosophies, Marxism in particular here, but not alone, is hilarious. Anything "extremist" comes under his gentle but pointed humor. > > *and How to Marry a Millionaire (ditto).* > > > Yeah, that one I get. > > I love Lauren Bacall's lines, she really makes me laugh. "Gesundheit." And Marilyn is such a little doll. > > His blankness really is phenomenal. He's definitely playing the pretty boy with a selfish, cold heart. > He's like a little statue. Perfect, polished, not a hair or word out of place. No emotion at all. Your *Rope* comparison is spot on!! He's like the young man, the dominant one, I forget his name, who carried through Rupert's theories. > It definitely reminded me of that film because of the setting and the monstrosity. It lacks the sexuality of *Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde*, though. > Yes, they shied away from that. I think they were scared of the censors. Also, one of the odd things about Hatfield's Dorian is that he comes across utterly sexless to me. > Oh, he puts on a show. It's arguably my favorite of his. He reminds me of Rupert Cadell (Jimmy Stewart) in *Rope*. > That is so brilliant! I never would have thought to compare them and now I'm wondering if Hitch had this character in mind. Not from the movie necessarily, but the literary original. How far will a man go to see his "theories" proved? How oblivious are the intellectually "superior" to their influence? > > She was very sweet, very much the "little yellow bird." But don't we men have to take "tests"?! I should know! My report card is full of "F's"! > Oh please.