MissGoddess

*This Gun For Hire - Alan Ladd as Raven*

A rainy afternoon in NYC and in between posting about Gary Cooper and researching for my Robert Ryan thread, I have to have my picture fix. *Kiss Me Deadly*

John, I'm going to share your comments with a couple of friends, one of whom saw 3:10 to Yuma with me and felt the same way. *Nihilism* is the word I groped for and you pegged it for me. Regarding *A History of Violence* you said: A History Of Violence is also a loose reworking of Man Of The West You really know how to bait my trap. It's sprung! Now I want to push that movie to the top of my Netflix queue! My list of favorite Coop films is sometimes in flux, but many times *Man of the West* has been at the top.

Hi Cascabel, Your reply certainly wasn't too long at all, it was very thoughtful and interesting. I hope to read many more as well. And about kids, they get the hang of computers and tech gadgets so quickly it blows my mind! I also fast-forward a lot these days. I used to watch movies all the way through if I thought they had some merit, now I not only use FF often, I even have trained myself to shut off movies right before they end if they end badly, in my opinion. That's a dirty trick on the filmakers, I know, but in some cases I find it necessary.

*Blowing Wild* is one of the few later Coop movies I still have never seen. I just can't wait to, especially after all this discussion. I have the feeling I'm going to love it.

Yes, Dan, as Chris pointed out, *The Music Box* is the one built on the extremely simple and exruciatingly funny plot device of the boys trying to get a piano up a long flight of steps. I laugh myself silly every time.

Pill? What pill? A Happy Pill? A Sleepy Pill? Or am I the pill?

When is it too much or do you think it ever can be too much? What causes you to draw the line at either never seeing a movie again because the violence depicted was too strong, or that you turn away from/fast-forward through such scenes? Are there any movies you think would have been better had they been less (or more) violent? What, if any, movies do you think most honestly portrayed the *effects* of violence on a character or society? Do you think of violence in movies as purely a dramatic device that has no impact, cumulative or otherwise, on the audience? Lots of questions I know, but I'm curious what others feel about this, alas, still timely subject.

Frank: It's true, there is one [genus felis] that *does* like water, the Tiger. If anyone thinks to escape a tigress by jumping into a pool, one will soon find they are sadly mistaken. So, no rowing in boats on lakes, no swimming in pools with tigers if you want to stay healthy. BTW, Kittens don't count, come now, they can't hurt you. And I'm curious about the "duckie", too. I only like mine, *a l'orange* .

This is actually the only set I do own, mainly because I love both *On Dangerous Ground* and *His Kind of Woman* . I really do like *Lady in the Lake* the more I see it, but I have to say one of those guys in the commentary track is a bit idiotic and annoying. The commentary track for On Dangerous Ground, however, is superb. It's also one of the best films ever, with my wonderful Robert Ryan giving one of his finest performances. I hope you like it. *His Kind of Woman* has some of the funniest lines ever, and the chemistry between Mitchum and Russell is a joy to watch. I can view this one over and over with pleasure.

Arkadin---great poster choices! I've never seen the Eleanor Parker movie or Naked Alibi, does TCM ever show them? Out of the Fog probably was John Garfield's nastiest, most sadistic roles. I prefer him in more sympathetic, if equally tough, parts. Frank---the shadow, I believe, is the monster's from *Nosferatu* .

*My stars! I saw all the notifications in my "inbox" for this thread and just had to jump in here for a look-see. You all have had an interesting conversation going, I'm sorry I missed it but those late hours would just about finish me* . >>>In scrolling back comments, trying to catch up, came upon comments on the current 3:10 To Yuma, part of which: What is so especially alarming, for me, about this appalling remake is its utter cynicism, which borders on outright nihilism. Characters introduced for no other reason than they can die a violent death. Plot hooks tossed in as an excuse to have a gunfight. And the conclusion, dramatically incomprehensible, renders all that has happened in the previous 1:55 meaningless. And, with easily a hundred people slaughtered by the time we come to the lunacy masquerading as a showdown, who cares that a principal character lies dead? What's one more body? Shame on critics for ignoring all of this and instead on congratulating director James Mangold for bringing back the western. Although, Assassination of Jesse James et al will put it back in the coffin. Message was edited by: jemnyc Message was edited by: jemnyc Message was edited by: jemnyc Message was edited by: jemnyc Tried to separate previous comment and my own, giving up. <<< *John* Are those your thoughts or were you quoting? I know I have the same trouble trying to italicize anything so I don't bother. But that's a great analysis, says what I feel about this remake so much better than I could ever do. By the way, I thought about your recommendations of *History of Violence* when I saw the trailers for *Eastern Promises* at the theater---I'm afraid now! If History of Violence is as violent as the trailers for this movie I might not be able to handle it. I think the subject matter of Eastern Promises looks so interesting but, eek, the brutality appears to be extreme. Frank---caught you hanging out in Coopland for quite an extended period but still no expansion on the tease about Grace in High Noon. Tsk tsk! Pandora wants to open that box! And relating back to the discussion about "likable characters" in movies---I want to add that my own "criteria", if you will, for liking a character, is fairly fluid and loose. I have made too many mistakes in my life so far and therefore feel very drawn to people who try and sometimes fail to do what's right or who see their motives questioned based on predisposed ideas about their morality. That's why in noir films, for instance, I like the "bad girls" who try to go straight or do right by their man or kin---they ring true to me. I also like the naive, nice young women but it's more interesting to find out what they'll do when their ideals are tested. I used to be so much more high minded about these things, I can't be judgemental about shady ladies anymore. I've known some shady ladies who were straight up honest when it counted and so I love a gal like Claire Trevor in *Raw Deal* ---she is not a nice lady but she was the most honorable character in the end (same with her gal in *Stagecoach* ). Or Carolyn Jones in *Last Train to Gun Hill* . Her character was the most interesting in that most suspensful western (by the way---this is the one to see if you want to know how 3:10 to Yuma's premise *should* play out). I could name dozens more characters, female AND male, who are like this. It's stupid or totally weak (treacherous) characters who mostly tend to turn me off. I don't mind meanness (if it's only a front), shallowness, sarcasm---anything, if the character is honest about it. I guess that's what I should have said from the start---almost any character that is *honest* about what he or she is, has my respect.

Oh! I have never seen *I Walk Alone* I will have to look for that one, too. It sounds more like it; I only remember Burt in *Desert Fury* . I hope they both can be resurrected soon!

Dan/Theresa---I don't venture into Imdb.com's board since a long while because I find too many people there are very negative about movies---especially classics. I figure, if you aren't into classics then you should only post about the newer movies you do like. I suppose only someone with romantic sensibilities could like *Random Harvest* . One of my best friends in definitely not a romantic, but she does think RH is a beautiful film. Angie---I have ordered from alibris.com before and I trust them very much. I read *Peter Ibbetson* when I was a teen and first saw the movie. I had known about Gerald DuMauriers's granddaughter, Daphne, first, and then discovered his book *Svengali* . That led to Peter Ibbetson. I love romantic writers and he is very much one of the foremost. The whole book is much like the excerpt you shared.

Well, if nothing else, westerns, old and new, are a source of endless fascination for writers. Here is another from TIME Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1664187-1,00.html

Thanks for the picture contributions, Normandie and Metsfan! I love it. Frank---did you see the shadow on the wall in that puzzle-picture I posted?

Another article (TIME magazine) related to the subject of westerns then vs. now, and well written: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1663833-1,00.html

That pool scene has one fundamental flaw: cats don't like water.

Hee! I guess we'll just keep the wet noodle handy. Angie---just FYI, in November deepdiscount.com has a sale that offers 20% off all their dvds, and they don't charge shipping, so if you want to wait until then to get RH, you might be able to pick it up for less than $10. I just wish they had put a bunch of extras into the dvd---the movie is worthy of it. Actually, I've been meaning to get around to finding the James Hilton book---I love to read books that movies I enjoyed are based on, sometimes I've stumbled on some real gems that way.

Congratulations, Dan, on your first thread! You know something, one of the few nice things I remember about my father was watching The Three Stooges on TV with him, he loved those guys, and how it used to make my Mom so mad (she thought they were too violent). My favorite of the three acts is Laurel and Hardy. Those two can make me laugh until my sides ache and my mascara runs into rivulets. And that's after a gazillion vieiwings of watching them push that same dern piano up those stairs.

>>>I'll give you credit for one thing, at least you've watched about 75% of The Fountainhead. I know other ladies who watch about five minutes of a film, call it "talk, talk, talk", and then shut it off. They shall remain nameless.<<< Angie, what are we going to do with this guy?

>>>Robert Osboune in his opening intro gave it I think the highest praise I have heard him give a movie in a long while.<<< I didn't watch it this time but I did catch Osbourne's introduction and was happy he said what he did about it. I was NOT happy to see the stupid TimeWarner Cable digital guide give it only three stars out of four----what????? This is definitely, absolutely, positively a four-star movie. Angie, I wouldn't say this about many movies, but if you buy it you won't go wrong.

>>>MissGoddess, I was reading through these comments and saw you talking about 3:10 to Yuma. "I mean entire towns were portrayed this way---mine workers, farmer, Indians, townfolk, Everyone! Basically, the director is saying everyone out west in those days was absolute trash who'd shoot you down for a quarter." Exactly. It's about impossible odds in a world that has become totally corrupt. In other words, it's about today, not necessarily then. We live in a world where every value except the CHRISTIAN values is respected -- pagan, Indian, Japanese, Hindu, Jewish, all in sort of a witches' broth that is really nothing more than the worship of money. Everyone is taking the easy way out and pretending that nothing is wrong, ignoring the complete moral downfall of civilization. I was shocked by 3:10 to Yuma. It's the culmination of Westerns -- it takes the High Noon template to a metaphysical level. Think of the names of the two stars. Christian vs. Crowe. Like The Departed, it has a good man under severe stress going up against a Lucifer figure, who EVERYONE is attracted to but him. Since this is Lucifer's world, he wins, but he respects the pluck of the martyred Christian. The movie shows how losing in this world is really winning. It's the story of Christ, basically.<<< Wow, ScuttlingCrab, I have to admit I had *not* thought of 3:10 to Yuma that way at all, but you do bring up some very intriguing points! And I agree at least with the first part of your post, and the reflections on current values, which are down the drain. Hmmmm. Very interesting, thank you for your comments.