MissGoddess

I think Jackie explained it best when she said that at least you've had the experience and you have memories. So long as you don't allow yourself to become embittered, those memories and experiences enrich your life. The alternative is to marry someone you don't love or live alone always, and both are intolerable to me.

Bonjour, CineMadame & rohanaka: After watching *Earrings of Madame de...* a second time I came away admiring it and the director much, much more. I still cannot say I like Darrieux any better, and am still left without that deep sympathy for her character that I would like to have. So I agree with your friend, CM. The even-handed way Ophuls focuses on the characters, not making any of them out to be saints or villains, also keeps me from reacting too emotionally to them. I'd say they interested me, especially the General, but I could not feel a great sense of loss or tragedy like I wish to at the end of the film. However I was moved by the last scene, very much. By the scene, not by the people so much. This movie is very much a director's film to me. And a splendid one. MADAME DE SPOILER It seemed very clear to me on the second watch that the General killed the Baron since he fired, we saw him fire, and there was no second shot. Also, just prior when the Countess went to see the Baron she told him it was "suicide" to go to this duel. The Baron's reply was simply "Perhaps" and said in such a way that I think he cared little whether he did die or not. If this is because he is a brave man and a realist, or because he loved her so much and was so bitterly disappointed in her, I am not sure. I lean to the former rather than the latter. Earlier we wrote: *"Write (direct) what you know." I may never know the answer.* *How will knowing the answer help you with the film?* Because I think if I knew Ophuls was a part of that rarified world, it would suggest to me he made use of the setting with no real view of criticizing it. It was simply a useful milieu with its customs and formalities, and a charming one that was familiar to him. Other directors might have cast a more jaundiced, satirical eye. Lubitsch would have presented it with affectionate teasing (and many of the humorous moments in *Madame de...* reminded me strongly of Lubitsch, especially the officer at the end who said to the General about the duel, "Surely you're not going to fight over professional matters?!") *Would you rather not be with the one you love (the Countess' plight) or lose the one you love (the General's plight).* I am with the poet who declared it better to have loved and lost. And for what it's worth, my ranking is: 1. The Reckless Moment 2. Letter From an Unknown Woman 3. Caught 4. Earrings of Madame de... 5. The Constant Nymph

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}Maryland makes a good half-way point between Monument Valley and Cong > > Oh yeah!! And on the way west from there, we can stop off at my house (since I'm SORT of in the middle) and we can have that big back yard BBQ that we talked about last summer.. you WILL bring your German Potato Salad won't you???? A whole tubful.

Maryland makes a good half-way point between Monument Valley and Cong.

Wouldn't that be super if we all could go...boy, that takes in a lot of territory.

Wouldn't that be super if we all could go...boy, that takes in a lot of territory.

Not to interrupt...but I just had to post this: h1. John Ford Ireland film symposium to debut in 2012. Clint Eastwood first recipient of John Ford Award. Michael Collins, Ireland's ambassador to the U.S. and Aine Moriarty of IFTA presented the award to Eastwood in Burbank on December 6. At the reception were members of Ford's family. From http://www.johnfordireland.org/ Irish Film And Television Academy (IFTA), in association with the John Ford Estate and the Irish Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, established ?JOHN FORD IRELAND?, celebrating the work and legacy of John Ford, in December 2011. The Irish Film & Television Academy will through JOHN FORD IRELAND, will lay the foundations for honouring, examining and learning from the work and legacy of legendary filmmaker John Ford, who is widely regarded as one of the most important and influential filmmakers of his generation. The symposium is slated to debut in June 2012 and I'm sure it will attract many scholars, fans, critics and members of the film community. Yours truly prays she can attend, too!

YES! Newton is an incredible actor...I never would have believed he could play such a cold, sedate man. I'm very impressed. T---I believe the doggie training act is somewhere in the middle...I wish I'd recorded it to be sure. And you're right about Sally Gray, I meant no slight to her...she's actually one of my favorite Brit actresses...she's so film noir! And for a British actress that's something, I don't typically "feel" them in that category. She's great, I just meant she really cared more about herself than anyone, though she did anonymously send that letter, thank goodness, or our Bill might have gone down the drain!

I will try to reply soon, if not tonight then by Friday evening...I've been so crazy at work that by the time I get home I'm too tired and stupid to write anything comprehensible!

*OBSESSION Spoilers* i have to say i thoroughly enjoyed *Obsession* AND mr newton...in fact this role shoots to my favorites by him. Though I loved him in *kiss the blood off my hands*, I was very impressed with the quiet assurance of this performance. It made me want to see him fall all the more. He was excellent as someone so consumed with his own superiority (your comparison to Rex Harrison was super, T) that this "project" and his "perfect murder" intention makes it a game of wits. The irony that the woman who sparks all this isn't worth all the drama is again, so very Britishly satirical. The ending is so very Hitchcock. Excellent film and I adored Monty! T-Mave, you should watch the part where Bill trains him to pull the plug, it's so cute. At first it's hard to tell what he's teaching him and then they show him testing it in his own bathtub and the little doggy falls into the tub (filled with water) and you GASP because that's what he MUST NOT do when he goes to the other one. I never would have come up with such a thing. I bet there are still old tubs like that in England, in old crumbly spaces like that one. But the kick is if you can get cell phone/internet service down there or not.

I atl last finished re-watching *Earringsof Madame de" I have at least a night and early morning hours to thikn on the paralells and they rhymed so beautifully. It will take a night or two before the ideas can be trusted on paper (or computer screen).

Hi, I've made a decision that before I answer your provocative questions and reply to your post, *CineMadame*, I'm going to watch *Earrings...* once more. I won't have time tonight but will try tomorrow evening. So much of interest has been written already that I want to see if my impressions change and I also want to make an effort to watch the movie without the previous factors influencing me last time I watched. I was feeling physically sick AND filled with enormous anxiety and worries (and it was around 3 o'clock in the morning...no one is lucid at that hour except Dracula!). When I saw this vain, spoiled woman without a care throwing away what I would have given two arms and two legs (defeating the purpose, I know) for, it really bothered me and prejudiced me unfairly. My views were also colored by some brief experiences in social circles similar to those in the movie, if not so exalted or elegant as they were then. Real love seemed preciously in short supply though passionate affairs labeled "love" abounded because the settings were conducive to romance and the people perpetually in search of stimulation. This made me think I knew where the countess and the Baron were coming from, what value to place on their romance. That is probably unfair and presumptuous, though.... ...I do wonder how much Ophuls wants us to take for granted about the setting he chose. Maybe he chose it simply to get us to the point of a duel, which was customary only amongst the upper classes. (After all, the poor just shot/stabbed/throttled the offending party with no dainty preamble. ) It could be he chose the upper class settings because they are simply more romantic, escapist and their formalities provide a wonderful set of chess moves where manners, customs and lifestyle becomes metaphor for human emotion and behavior. Or he just liked them, and was familiar with rich and that world. "Write (direct) what you know." I may never know the answer.

SPOILED MADAME, SPOILED EARRINGS, *CM*, that was a beautiful and remarkable post. Already you've heightened my appreciation for this film and what Ophuls accomplished. I was thinking the countess reminded me a little of Scarlett, too, and her misguidedness, her vanity. That the Baron shook her off when he learned of her failings, while the General loved her all those years knowing how she was, makes you wonder if he (the Baron) could really have loved her at all. Or if, as Ro put it, he was caught up in passion's thrall, not the steady kind of love that lasts. I love all you wrote, it was perfection. When I watch the film again, I will do so with greater understanding. I especially like what you say about the earrings' being the physical representation of love. That is excellent. And so do you think Ophuls therefore saw that they ended up where they would do the most good? *Ro*----you're not on the mountaintop alone, this movie to me is a perfect example of presenting many different perspectives (again, that is my opinion, I can't say if Ophuls had only one clear point of view he was putting across or not...the open ending makes me think he wanted to leave some things to our own interpretation). I think you and may be on the same wavelength, at least as far as my emotional reaction to some things. What you say about the countess is how I feel, too: that even in love, she did not cease to be self-centered, and this did keep me at arms length from her. You wrote that she and Baron thought only of their (immediate) happiness no matter what it cost others. I do agree. I think the countess went even a step further, I feel that like CineMaven intimated, she was dying from lack of love, or as I see it, from not getting things her way. I can't help believing that love makes you more aware of life, and her own new found love should have made her more sensitive to what she was doing to her husband, if it was something more than passion that is. Did she even once acknowledge or even respond to him? She seemed such an automaton once she fell "love sick", a zombie, so that she could only see the Baron and what she was losing. That is understandable to begin with, the shock of it all. But as we see, she allows the tragedy to burrow like a maggot in her heart (sorry to be so vivid) and destroy her. If part of this misery had been self-awareness of what she did to the General and their marriage, I might have felt worse for her. Or if she seemed more an ignorant, childish creature, I could also feel more sympathy. But she seemed simply very much a one-idea-at-a-time lady, and that one idea being her own heart or, before she fell in love, her own vanity. As for your questions, I guess I answered how I feel about the countess (I will also say that had a more expressive actress played her, I might have been much more taken with the character. I did keep thinking of Vivien Leigh, and how I would have really gotten under the skin of Madame has she played her). I really liked the General. It was a different kind of love he displayed, but remarkably understanding and as CineMaven pointed out, tolerant. Naturally he had his own failings, perhaps this is why he was able to be tolerant, he had so much in himself to forgive. He saw his wife for what she was, accepted life as she wanted it, and played the game. That was perhaps unwise for in the end it did not help his cause because, like MrGrimes said, he didn't really give her any emotional satisfaction and so she remained cold to him. Still, in life, one cannot have everything. Someone should have told this to the countess. The Baron comes off a little lacking to me. He is charming and handsome but I was never quite sure of this "great love" on his part. Being played by Vittorio De Sica may be part of it. Again, the performers here really seemed to influence my view of their characters. To me, De Sica is always the charming Italian rogue. Smiling, adorable, adoring, but fickle and possibly treacherous. Incapable of being lastingly in love with any one woman. He is perhaps the countess' male counterpart, though less vulnerable. In the end, he was able to switch off his feelings for her when he learned of her lie, and his dropping her did not surprise me. Nor do I blame him, it must have been quite a blow to find a woman as deceptive as he, and since he was not likely to change, he could not believe she had. (Letter From An Unknown Woman spoiler) As to the ending, I will have to watch it again, but my first impression is that the countess probably did die, and that the General "won" the duel. This scenario almost mirrors *Letter From an Unknown Woman*, and it seems to indicate that indeed, the husband vanquishes the lover. Perhaps by not telling us the outcome, Ophuls is saying it does not matter, these people have already "killed" what matters most to each.

This is already warming up to be a toasty-roasty discussion of Earrings of madame de...! Terrific post, MrGrimes...You perfectly captured what I found most affecting at the end. It is a beautifully "book ended" film, and I confess I teared up at the last gesture. The situation reminds me so much of Letter from an Unknown Woman. THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN ROHANAKA.... > But you were right.. (gasp.. did I say THAT??) I am conflicted about this film.. just as you said.. but NOT for reasons you may guess. > > > But alas.. (and here comes the conflict.. ) despite the many things I found to like about it.. (and I did find several) at the same time.. I never felt so let down by a story (at the end of it all) in all my born days. > > OH.. and PS: my reasons for saying this may NOT even be the ones you think.. as I imagine that right now, you are expecting me to have some definite opinions on the various characters based on certain moral issues that are raised (and/or not raised) in the story. And while it is true that I do have opinions about all that.. that is STILL not the reason I felt frustrated w/ this film. > > In fact.. ha.. I would be very surprised if you could guess what I THOUGHT (maybe even WISHED) for the end of this film to be (woman of mystery that I am.. ha ) :-) > Ooooh, this is too tempting! Let's all take a guess what Ro's conflict with the ending might be! Here's what I think: SPOILED EARRINGS! You wanted the countess and handsome Vittorio to end up with each other happily ever after, non?

> I think Fuller liked slapping people in the face with the hard truths about our ugliness as a society. He is not a subtle filmmaker. > Yes, he was a "sock it to them" kind of guy. > From what little I know of Fuller, he felt more humanity from those on the wrong side of the street than those on the right. His on-the-ground coverage of the harsh urban worlds and then the harsh worlds of war helped to shape him as a writer/director. He made socially-conscious films, for the most part. He looked to make statements through entertainment. > Which seems to indicate it was all about situations and the kind of people who were as you say, on the 'wrong' side of the street that mattered to him, not calling attention to how clever he was.

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote} Sam Fuller's films often expose the ugliness of Society through the "ugliness" of society. And that's the only reason I can stomach (mostly) what he deals out, because he's not doing these things with an exploitative intent. In a way, the singing scene is as daring as anything he ever did because it's Fuller and again he's kind of thumbing his nose at those who pretend to admire boldness when in fact are merely titillated by the kind of exploitation he exposes and at the same time, he's also exposing those who pretend to "bless the little children and the animals" when in fact they're destroying their innocence. I admit it took me a while to find these things in Fuller. He's so in-your-face you think it must be some kind of joke. Well, I guess it is, maybe he was laughing a bit at some folks. Did you ever wonder if he made his films not only about the fringe characters in society, but for them, and that's why they're so boldly drawn? He seldom went in for subtlety or slyness, which usually is about the director not the subject. He seemed to care passionately about subject matter, like a journalist does.

I agree that Fuller doesn't insert a scene like that without a reason and to make a point. If he were a professional boxer, they'd say of him that he "never pulls his punches". That's true of his violent scenes, but it's equally true of a scene like that.

So mister GRimsey: who's offereing and who's the offerree?

> That's a very good point. She really was impatient, and I can see why. So she had to learn patience. Good things come to those who wait. > I think she had a rotten start in life, I don't remember specifics, but it seems like she had no family. You see, so much trouble starts when you aren't grounded with a close, loving family. What's strange is what about Carl? He had no family either? Usually, the loneliness of the wife left behind can be mitigated if there's family around (presuming you get along with them, of course). These two seemed sadly alone in the world. It's too bad. I can't blame Gilda for any of her problems, even if she was rash and impulsive sometimes. The deck really seemed stacked. And no, I don't think that's an "excuse" for poor judgement and wrong choices, either. I know from stacked decks but I still try to make the occasional rational choice. > She went from one private hell to another, basically. And the film does play like a prison flick, which is one of the reasons why the film didn't resonate as much with me. I'm not that crazy about prison flicks. Now I do like "captive" films, though. I love the tension with those. > You know I was going to say that! I thought yesterday "this plays like a prison film, I bet that's why FrankGrimes didn't care for it."

> Even though I know the scene where she is hiding in the crate on the ship is done because she's a stowaway, it just feels like that epitomizes her and Carl's relationship. She's to hide in the crate. She's to have faith. > It's funny you bring up that scene because I thought it was significant, too, but for a different reason. I thought it showed her impatience. She was understandably sick of being down there, but her life was at stake and you can't expect to "travel first class" when you're on the lam. That's when Carl tells her she has to have faith, again. Remember Leonie's words to her after the night's debauch? She basically told her she'd started something that would be hard to stop. Carl's unrealistic expectation that she could just stay cooped up in a room for months goes back to what I said about leaving her in that hotel in the first place. If she roomed elsewhere, maybe she could have gotten out at least for fresh air. I don't know. Maybe the whole island was just one big "concentration camp" of sorts. Carl never should have left her there.

> What's the statute of limitations on that score? I didn't know there was one. Maybe that was the origin of the saying, "Sailor beware."

> My opinion is the same with them. It's as I mentioned, a woman will have to decide if she can love a man who is away from her the majority of the time. Jeff (James Stewart) was trying to push Lisa Carol (Grace Kelly) away by saying they were so different. Look at John Ford and his wife versus say Hitch and Alma. Different kinds of marriages. If a woman is okay with a man never being around, a good marriage and relationship is a strong possibility. *The Reckless Moment* features a "distant" marriage. But if a woman needs a man to be more than a provider of money, a provider of an emotional closeness and intimacy, then such a marriage and relationship is going to have major issues. > Of course. I think Gilda must have known that, growing up in New Orleans, probably near the docks. > I just thought Gilda felt alone and needing Carl more than he was offering. It's seem like she was always told to wait for him, wait for him, wait for him. > That's what sailor's wives did. They waited.

If Carl were a soldier or a reporter, someone like say, "Jeff" in *Rear Window*, would you say the same? Carl's job takes him away, he's not "blowing out of town" to go hit the hot spots, he's got to go where the job takes him and when. Women who are married to sailors down through the ages know about that life, it's a lonely one, where they spend months on end, sometimes years, not seeing their husband or even knowing if he's alive. I wonder how many "Dads" came home to children that looked suspiciously unlike them.

> So what did you make of Gilda telling Carl that he wouldn't be happy away from the sea? Is that something she did come to realize for herself or do you think that was purely her trying to soften the blow for him? I thought it was to soften the blow...it could be a bit of both since she never got his letters and thought he'd not even bothered to write. > As you know, I have felt she did come to realize what Carl really did love the most. I definitely believe he loved Gilda, but she was second. I get the feeling his thinking was, "I'm not at sea, so what the heck do I do? Go see Gilda! She'll keep me busy until it's time to go." > I'm not sure it was that bad, I think he was always looking forward to coming back and seeing her. > I think all of that is a very fair statement. I don't see the majority of the board looking to analyze films. It's more about sharing some opinions on favorites and recent TCM airings. There's nothing wrong with that. I prefer analysis, though. > I do to, mixed with fun.

Hi, CinemAva, Misspent adol-- okay. Ohhhhhkay. I'll bite. What'd you do? Return some library books back late? Ha! I guess I mean that I spent too much time with my nose buried in books. I like your list of ten 30's stars. I couldn't whittle mine down without causing myself a serious lobotomy. Thank you. The lists were short because those 5 are easy. It's naming the rest in order that would cause me brain damage. For character actors today, I'd have to go with Paul Giamatti, Steve Buscemi and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I also think Laura Linney, Marcia Gay Harden, Frances McDormand are leading character actresses. They may not be the star of the picture; but they sure can carry it. I know...I know. They?re no Una Merkel. I know some of those and agree with you they're excellent performers. As for Una, there's only one Una but don't tell O'Connor that! Edited by: MissGoddess on Dec 4, 2011 10:02 PM