MissGoddess
-
Posts
22,766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by MissGoddess
-
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*What was silly about it? I don't remember it too well.*
>
> Sheila (Evelyn Keyes) helps her crooked husband smuggle in jewels but she is (unknowingly) affected with the small pox. So now she's a carrier who ends up leaving a trail of victims behind her. The cops want her for the jewels and the crisis folks want her for the small pox. All of that sounds good, but how it plays out just didn't do much for me. The male chasers are rather boring. They sure ain't Richard Widmark and Paul Douglas.
Oh, now I remember. The guy who was her boyfriend was a real creep...I mean he was so nasty to her. Was it Steve Cochran?
I don't even remember the chasers.
-
What was silly about it? I don't remember it too well.
-
That's a brilliant list of not-so-bashful blondes, CinemAva! I appreciate the mix of stars and character actresses...but no Bette?! I know, I know; she was often a brownette/auburn tressed gal, too. In any case, the hair was never a factor in a Bette Davis performance (though sometimes she could make our hair stand on end!).
Actually the real surprise is seeing Grace Kelly on your list...I had no idea you liked her.
I too think it's great that you listed favorite films and best performances. It gives insight into why you like them so much.
-
So why did you not like *The Killer that Stalked New York* very much? I only saw it once, but I liked it.
-
> Oh, that's right. I forgot about that. He was definitely one who felt uncomfortable with sex and this pushed Maggie (Kim Novak) away. It's interesting how the two women are shown in each film. We see Maggie's willingness to try and be with her husband but he does push her away. This makes her feel rejected and lonely. With Laura, she's mostly feeling stuck in the routine of marriage (life). She's one of the parts of the routine. She shops every Thursday. That's just how it tends to be.
>
Regarding your latter statement about Laura, I re-watched *The Reckless Moment* last night and that features another portrait of a woman caught up in a routine life that has kind of cut her off from real feelings that are beyond the typical. James Mason even asks Joan Bennett at one point if she's ever alone, away from her family and she answers simply "No" in a way that reverberates with a tinge of frustration. And again, Lucia, like Laura, is in a relatively happy situation, she's not looking for anything more nor does she need anything beyond what can be found with what she already has, it just needs shaking up a bit. Shake off the dust of routine. In movies, the things that shake marriages or families up tend to be really dramatic. *Brief Encounter* is much more real...anyone might meet someone on the train or in the station (only why is it never an attractive professional who offers to help get the cinder out of your eye...it's usually someone without a job or recent acquaintance with a bath...)
> I think it's because marriage is seen as unexciting. There's something more exciting about love at first blush and there is something more dangerous about affairs. Television seems to be a place where marriages are accepted more because television is about routine. It's about episode after episode, such as life. Movies are events.
>
That's something I never considered. Interesting comparison, and I can see it. People were pretty upset when Lucy and Desi divorced in real life, and that was after the show ended! They would have flipped if they'd "divorced" the Ricardos or even showed one of them cheating for real.
-
Speaking just for myself, I'll say it helps. It helps tremendously because what you just wrote was tremendous. It made the movie come to life for me, to see inside a woman's soul and mind. I will watch Brief Encounter soon with your words in mind. That's brilliant, Jacki, one of the nicest tributes to how a movie can get inside you. Marvelous. I miss you writing like that more.
I completely feel the longing and unexpected emotions and the fears to that meet them as I read your words. You feel ALIVE is the point, you can even sense things with your touch and smell that you never noticed before....it's really succumbing to a real life moment.
Oh no,now I'm longing for one....
Bravissimo!
Edited by: MissGoddess on Oct 30, 2011 10:40 PM because i had to substitute "tough" with "touch"
-
I think that's terrific, Jackie, really, and Frank I think you two should be discussing this movie since Jackie understands it way, way deeper than I do. I want to understand it better, too, because I really loved it when I first saw it as a teenager, but the last time I watched I was less moved.
-
> So I guess it's the entire restraint of it all that keeps me away, even though all of that restaint makes it a lovely tale.
>
She starts to feel "unseemly" emotions.
> I'm with ya. I do prefer the visceral, too. We're shallow! I think your previous observation that Laura reasons out her emotions does make the feeling much less visceral with *Brief Encounter*.
>
I guess it makes us understand her thinking but it also undercuts reacting emotionally...and that may be the point. People should think before they act in such situations, but they seldom do and movies even seldomer show people thinking!
> I completely agree. Kim Novak isn't your typical middle-aged housewife who feels stuck. Celia's portrayal feels much more real.
>
Absolutely more real, more relatable.
>
> I thought Kim's husband and Fred Jesson were similar in that each trusted their wife and each was kind of caught up in what they were doing. Complete trust can sometimes be taken as uncaring.
>
Well, he (Kim's husband) moved away every time his wife wanted to be intimate so there was something wrong with him in that area. Unless he was behaving that way because he knew about her previous affair(s).
> She's a big reason! I was actually moved by the ending in that one, too. It's funny how movies can make you support adultery. Manipulative is right.
>
You really have to look out or a movie can make you end up thinking almost anything is justifiable! They can be sneaky. And sad to say, it's amazing how much infidelity there is in classic movies. I mean, it seems like they're all about cheating! If not married couples, then someone always ends up leaving someone they're engaged to.
> Griff started off the film questioning the tactics of Kirby (John Wayne). Then he finds himself in Kirby's shoes and he starts to understand why Kirby did what he did and follows suit. There's no questioning of it, it's an agreement. The machine is greater than its people parts is the answer.
>
I figured it was something like that. It was kind of standard war fare, not my thing. Did you watch *Men in War* yet? That's a non-standard one I like.
-
> Why do you find it depressive? Do you wish them to be together? I do agree, I do find the tone to be mostly depressing. I'm reacting to her, mostly.
>
No, I don't wish them to be together. Mostly it's Celia's tone. I don't think she smiles in the entire movie. I find her a super serious woman, not really sad because she has nothing to be sad about. She's sensitive, but not terribly emotional. She reasons out her feelings, which I admire, but I can't relate. My brain goes on fire if I meet a man that interests me. Of course, it hasn't happened in years so maybe my pilot light is out.
> So why do I like *Strangers When We Meet* more?
>
If I were to analyze why I like it more, I'd have to start with the fact that in SWWM, there is much more that is visceral (okay, superficial) going on. Kirk Douglas is about as far as you can get from British repression, except maybe Anthony Franciosa.
Plus, we can react to Kim as to a beautiful, sensual woman. A dream. In my case, I'd like to look like her and know I was stopping traffic lights all over suburbia. Celia Johnson is a more down to earth, realistic example of a suburban housewife, especially at that time and place. But I can't relate to Celia and I can relate to Kim even if I'm not remotely pretty like Kim. Kim had a crazy relationship with her mother, I can relate to that. She married what she thought was a real "catch", any woman can relate to that. She meets a dynamic guy who makes her feel attractive, that's a dream. This movie takes the same subject, but gives it an admittedly "Hollywood" treatment. The deck is stacked because no one really believes that two super stars are going to resist each other to the end. That's cheap. So the ultimate reason I like SWWM more is I have cheap tastes. I'm so easy to manipulate. I hate adultery and anything that tries to make it "okay" and this movie does on some level. It demonizes the mates and that's the part I don't like about SWWM. Though Barbara Rush comes off okay, Kim's husband is basically screwed up sexually and that's all we ever know about him. We never get his point of view of anything like we do Barbara's.And you know the reason you like SWWM more is Kim Novak!
>
> She turns in a beautiful performance. There's nothing flashy about her performance yet it's quite spectacular.
>
It is a good performance, yes.
> FLYING LEATHERNECKS SPOILED
>
> Griff (Robert Ryan) basically commands his brother-in-law to his death.
>
Well, he probably felt it was his "duty". Does the movie question the rightness of that act or suggest that we should question it? I can't remember.
-
> So you find it too restrained and inward? You find it too British? I know you're not a big fan of the "British love."
>
It's restrained and somewhat depressive in tone (to me). I prefer the tone of *The Happy Friends*, though I'm not a fan of Ann Todd.
> And that's where I find the film to be at its best. The "innocence" of it all and how quickly that innocence can create guilt with good people. It's clear to me that Laura (Celia Johnson) really didn't want to do what she gets caught up in. She knows her husband (Cyril Raymond) is a really nice guy who cares about her, it's just he isn't the same kind of guy as Alec (Trevor Howard). We can't just turn off our feelings, but we can't just follow them wherever they take us, either.
>
>
It's remarkable how all that is captured, mostly visually. We follow Celia's mind and how it works.
>
> This is where you turn into Sweet T! Horrible!
>
> It's basically about two different viewpoints and how each comes to understand the other. I didn't like the turn Griff (Robert Ryan) makes at the end of the film. I thought that was too coldhearted.
>
I don't remember the end.
-
>
> I've been asking myself why I didn't like *Brief Encounter* more than I did and I'm struggling to figure it out. The only thing I keep coming back to is that it's too restrained for my personal tastes. I don't find either person all that appealing to me, personally. I think the film is extremely well done, but the tone isn't my tone.
>
I understand that. I have similar reactions to films, I'm sure we all do.
> Why is it that the film doesn't rate so highly for you?
>
Surprisingly for similar reasons as you. But I do appreciate the film and admire its sensitivity. It's pure Lean and the template really for so many of his best films that focus on tortured romance.
> I completely agree with that. It's marital malaise and that can happen to anyone with any spouse. You have one thing but you end up wanting something new and different. I feel *Brief Encounter* is the best film I have seen in terms of capturing marital malaise. I guess I'm not as big on that subject matter as I thought I may be. It's all done very tenderly. And since it's done that way, you start to forget that each is married.
>
Which is probably what they were in danger of doing. I like that the movie shows how slippery those shoals are, once you start dreaming of someone else. It's a slow drift. Everything seems dreamy, until you come to the reality of what you're doing. It doesn't try to "glamorize" adultery, in fact, it's a warning to how easily anyone can slip away from their mate.
>
> She's certainly right about all of that. It's lovingly shot. The director cares deeply about his characters.
>
Definitely, Lean was a passionate director. What an eye he had! I think he was born with a light reader in his head.
> It's a good "escape" picture, without a doubt. Gable is really why I enjoyed it so much. I really liked his "Hank Lee." Gable really was the king of comfort. He's seemingly always at ease with his characterizations.
>
He could definitely do these kinds of roles in his sleep. They are fun and sweep one away into a world where it's all going to come out right just because he's there.
I eat this stuff up.> He tries to be so manly and then he basically falls asleep.
>
Ha! He'd much rather be scoping his next rich lady victim to pay his champagne bill.
>
> Really?! I didn't know that at all. He was a tough one!
>
He also played Gene Tierney's bumbling and lovable Pop in *Where the Sidewalk Ends*.
>
> I like when she's soft and vulnerable.
Me, too.
> *So why didn't you like* *Flying Leathernecks so much?*
>
>
> I was wanting more from the story. I really liked seeing Wayne and Ryan sharing the screen. That's what I liked most about the film. It's a rather harsh film.
>
That was my impression. The story is lacking in any real tension and the conflict felt forced, or shallow. Robert Ryan vs. John Wayne! That's not interesting to me. I felt they were wasted.
-
I know...two words you don't often hear in a sentence: "Otto" and "doll."
Poor Sammy Hinds! Have you been unfaithful?
I can't watch movies like *The Devil Doll* or that ghastly Karen Black movie where she's trapped with the tiny African native...it just splits my spleen seeing tiny mean little people running around with sharp instruments...now I know how Gulliver felt.
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}I like forgetting things, it makes everything seem new.
>
Oh my goodness, that is going to be my new personal motto. Brilliant!!!
-
Why are people suddenly scarier when they're shrunk to six inches tall?
-
I know exactly the feelings you had as you pored over the book, Jackie. I simply lived in the library during the "dark days" of 'tweenhood. I now believe the book I looked at was a library book, because no one I knew would have ever bought me such a thing. The first classic-movie related gift I ever received was a poster from my best friend, it was Clark Gable as "Candy" in ***** Tonk*. I still think it's one of the handsomest images I ever saw. He's leaning against the bar, with that unmistakable, taunting smirk on his face. No wonder none of the high school boys had a chance with me. :x (Well, almost none of them)
I'm watching *The Uninvited*, too! Even though I don't like ghost movies, I love this one. It's a real mood piece, and the actors are wonderful. How they manage to convince me it's the west coast of England when it's evidently a set is beyond me. It's the magic of movies.
-
What a wonderful story, Fred, thank you for posting that.
-
I love that book already...I can see why it captivated you, it's packed with great pictures!
-
How do, Ro!
> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}I wish I could move to 148 Bonny Meadow Road!
>
> Just make sure you stay away from 1313 Mockingbird Lane!
Ha!! Right now I'd take 1313 Mockingbird Lane if it isn't S-N-O-W-I-N-G there!!!!!!!!!!
-
*I liked it but I didn't love it.*
Why?
*I actually loved the little relationship between Albert (Stanley Holloway) and Myrtle (Albert Godby) more than the one between Alec (Trevor Howard) and Laura (Celia Johnson).*
I thought they were funny. What didn't you like about Alec and Laura? Is it the Britishness?
*I do believe David Lean (and Noel Coward) captures the entire idea of an "innocent" love affair. There's nothing lascivious about Alec and Laura. They are just feeling unfulfilled in their life, despite having a lot in their life. It's the kind of attention the other offers that is different than what they currently have.*
I think so. I think it's very probably had they married each other instead of who they did, they would run into the same scenario. It's not really who they're married to, it's the modern boredom, settling in, taking for granted.
I agree with Jackie's post that Lean does a good job of getting inside the characters' heads. And it's beautifully photographed.
*Shockingly, yes! I found *Soldier of Fortune *to be a good romp. Gable is once again at his charming best. He's definitely the draw. But I also liked Susan Hayward. She was soft and lovely, which is how I like her best. My only disappointment is the ending. That's too "happy ending" for me. But Gable is just so darn good. He makes it look easy.*
I really didn't expect you to like it much. The ending is very Hollywood, I agree. This is one of my favorites. I watch it whenever I'm in the mood for a good escape movie. I absolutely love Alex D'Arcy's character, Rene. He makes me laugh so, he's such a gigolo.
Tom Tully, can you believe that's Rob's sweet old man playing the woman-hating bar owner, Tweedie?
I liked the movie so much, a few years ago I got the book and I really enjoyed it. It's slightly different of course, but the movie captures the characters very well.
I thought Susan was excellent, too and I enjoy the scenes with the little old Chinese lady.
So why didn't you like *Flying Leathernecks* so much?
-
so you liked *soldier of fortune* better than a Nick Ray film?! And with Robert Ryan?!
-
I was close!
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*They all are. And he's married to a knock out.*
>
> Just bring a pear.
>
Ha! I'm afraid Rob's basically a good boy.
> It came up in my Google search window.
>
>
> I wouldn't have known that one. I only know 742 Evergreen Terrace, which is the Simpsons' address.
>
A movie address: 21b Baker Street?
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*As if I could.*
>
> He's a loyal, loving husband!
>
They all are. And he's married to a knock out.
> *Did you have to look that up?
*>
> Yes, of course.
And I've watched all but one season!I wouldn't remember the address that quickly. I'm not even sure I got the number right. It sounds right.
The only other TV address I know is 623 E. 68th Street. It's the Ricardo's apartment building, smack in the East River.
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*I wish I could move to 148 Bonny Meadow Road!*
>
> Are you gonna steal Rob from Laura?!
As if I could. Did you have to look that up?
The Annual FrankGrimes Torture Thread
in Your Favorites
Posted
Those are pretty lame the way you name them but I seemed to enjoy it nevertheless.