MissGoddess
-
Posts
22,766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by MissGoddess
-
-
> Howdy, Fordy Guns -- I'm ready for my "hello, gorgeous"!
>
Go see Barbra, maybe she has one for you.
>
> So Plummer is purely needed to avenge a wrong. That tells you the villain isn't much needed in *Stagecoach*.
>
As an individual, no, but he's part of the evil fabric of the city of the "lord" (Lordsburg).
>
> Oh! I thought you were saying Frank brings things out of Brennan. That's where I was confused. It's true, Brennan is bringing things to the surface with Frank. It's the flip of the hero and villain roles. And I loved that about *The Tall T*.
>
I was asking you what you thought. Yes, I agree it's a flipped situtation.
> Yes, you have it right. You got it. And are all western villains named "Frank"? There's *The Tall T*, *High Noon*, *Once Upon a Time in the West*, this message board...
>
What's in a name? Everything in this case.
-
PUT THAT DOWN! It's empty, anyway.
Poor butterscotch, you obviously snubbed her.
-
>
I can't watch two of them until Christmastime. They are on my X-Mas list. But I do have the other two. They have to be better than Crappy and Poopy! >
Don't try to weasel out! And where is butterscotch? You need to be boiled in oil again. It's overdue.
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*I can't ever conceive of a movie with a man being tortured by a 20th century penal system using medieval methods as "soft", but to each his own.
*>
>
Your torture is way worse than that! A guy can get over a simple whipping in a prison.For that remark you must watch:
*Summertime*
*The Constant Nymph*
*Brief Encounter*
*Born to be Bad*
And when your brother calls you up and asks what you're doing, you have to say "I'm watching The Constant Nymph."
-
>
> You know, I just re-watched *Stagecoach* this year, yet I cannot remember the details of Luke Plummer. Did Ringo Kid kill a family member of his? So Plummer represents putting Ringo Kid's past to bed.
>
Plummer killed his father or brother, I can't remember which. Ringo tells Dallas and ends with, "You can't understand what it's like to lose your family/someone close to you" and that's when she tells how her family were massacred on Superstition Mountain (I'm going on memory, sorry).
> *Maybe he's ambition, the need to dominate others or greed.*
>
> You think Brennan is that way? I'm only asking because I can't remember him that well, right now. He seemed to withdraw from society, right?
>
I remember we discussed how Frank seemed wistful about not having had a ranch, a real life, but didn't he admit at the end that he wanted the gold too much to change? I think he was a bit greedy. Scott was a simple man, he dreamed small, Frank was like a crooked Nathan Stark, he dreamed bigger.
> Great descriptions! Boone is definitely the more outgoing, engaging actor. Scott is more like Coop. You have to pay attention to him (them).
>
I think moviemanofthewest go to it best. I also think Scott makes Boone look at himself. Especially in that "skinning" scene. Boone seems to make excuses for the two crazies with him, and Scott says something that made him think. I don't have this movie to refer to either, sorry! But it's kind of a reverse, instead of the hero being confronted with his fears in the person of the villain, the villain is confronted with his weaknesses in the hero.
-
> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}I'm not sure that "Frank" in "The Tall T" represents another side of Scott's character as much as he might reflect it. He wants the things that Scott (Pat) wants. He wants a place and a normal sort of life but I think he is conviced he can't get it. It makes the evil of his deeds harder to take thus making him more complex than Pat.
>
> Going back to "Valance" (Don't we always?) I sometimes see Valance and Tom as two sides of the same coin. Tom is every bit as tough, every bit as hard as Valance but his side of the brain won't let him do it. Valance could never weep for a lost love but Tom is perfectly capable, if not willing, to shoot someone down from the shadows. This is the very thing we would expect of Valance. That difference also comes to Tom's ruination, at least part of it, where Valance would just wander off to his next victim.
>
> Shane and Wilson maybe don't fit that description but Shane surely understands Wilson. That doesn't make Shane just like him but there is a dark side that fits Shane's psyche.
>
> Anyway...
I'll echo Jackie's "nice" and throw in a "hello, gorgeous!" As usual, you say in a few sentences what takes me forever. I like: "he doesn't represent so much as reflect..."
And I remember all of us discussing Frank's own "road not taken", how he seemed to want a settled life but it didn't work that way. Maybe Scott is the one who's making Frank look at himself and his failings, the choices he didn't make or the man he wishes he could have been.
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}I thought Robert Mitchum was a sap in *Out of the Past.* Talk about soft!
>
> h5. ooops. Sorry, Out of the Past fans.
I agree (and I do love this movie).
Like I said Grimes, you pick and choose, like we all do I suppose. I thought KTBOMH had some pretty tough things to it; I can't ever conceive of a movie with a man being tortured by a 20th century penal system using medieval methods as "soft", but to each his own.
-
I give up, you're trying to have it both ways. Most of your favorites have girls in them that represent the road not taken but this one you don't care for. And that's fine. To each his own.
-
>
> So are you saying Plummer represented that with the Ringo Kid?
>
Plummer was "Liberty Valance", the lawless man of the gun. Ringo was a good guy, but also a gunman, one determined to do vengeance. He killed three men and only needed three bullets to do it! I can't take credit for noticing that detail, it was pointed out by Gallagher.
> That one is very interesting. It's yet another one where the villain represented multiple people's fears. The biggest being Doretta (Maureen O'Sullivan). Her husband was exposed and this made her look at herself. I'd probably have to watch it again to see how Frank represented Brennan (Randolph Scott). I'm sure he did. He brought him and Doretta together, so that's one thing.
>
Maybe he's ambition, the need to dominate others or greed.
>
> And Frank himself is one of the better western villains you'll find because he has a lot of regret and self-reflection. He's a rather complex guy.
>
He's great and had the perfect actor to portray him. Boone is the very opposite of Scott. Self-reflective as you say, educated, witty, talkative. Scott's honest, taciturn, gets on with it.
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}Formatting wise - Half the time I end up going back five or six times to try and fix it and I just make it all worse.
>
I know! That's happened to me countless times, that I'm scared to go back and edit glaring mistakes.
> I really loved KTBOMH, it was very well done, romantic, yet also quite creepy - the Robert Newton character was something else and really scared me. I love Robert Newton, but he was an awful character in this film.... the kind to prey on people who are already victims and can't really do anything to stop him or defend themselves from him. They are already cut off from the means to protect themselves so it's easy pickings for him.
>
Perfectly said. Newton is incredibly slick, he never gets caught in the machinery of justice...I can imagine he either got out of serving in the war that way or was just as dishonest as an enlisted man, taking advantage of every opportunity. Burt is like an animal, honest basically, wanting to survive, come out of the cold, and not slick enough for the tricks it seems you now need to know to get along.
> They could have called the movie Touch of Evil, since poor Burt had been harmed by the evil of war, man's natural evil coming to the fore, then he comes back to a society that not only doesn't care, but forces him into that very mold that he escaped from... Everything he touches, including Joan, is tainted, through no real fault of his own.
Precisely. See, Grimes, Jackie put it there. Isn't that noir, when the "hero" gets sucked (suckered) by not just a girl or criminals, but by the system, partly because of his own weakness and partly because of a flawed world?
-
> Yes! He chooses to do what she wishes. Harry Fabian just keeps on running!
>
But she kind of represents the truth that you can't keep running. Fabian takes the other course and he is stopped from running...permanently. She knows this in a way, that they can't live like that. *The Live By Night* also goes to show you can't live like that. As much as it stinks, you have to find a way to live in this system, at least if you want to have a home life. If you want to be a homeless loner, that's another story.
>
> Now if we saw that, that would make me feel better about the film. But I don't believe the film wants to think this.
>
I think it does.
>
> I can't disagree with that. The film is clearly trying to draw sympathy for the returning vet while showing the danger of teaching a man to kill. That's definitely "film noir." I thought the outset of the film was excellent. I liked the set-up. But then Joan enters the picture and things go screwy.
>
Doesn't he have to be offered something different? You want it to be all about crappy people like Newton or an unsympathetic legal system? Where's the possibility, the hope, the redemption? What about the normalcy Joan represents, and how she gets sucked into it? What about how her life basically gets shot to piece when she wakes up and sees this man come in her window? Isn't that what the war did? Sneak right into the heart of normal people's lives, trailing issues no one wanted to confront? She was happily buried along with her dead hero fiance. Burt dragged her back to life and not altogether happily.
>
> One of my very favorite films plays similar to *Kiss the Blood Off My Hands*, but it's done much differently. It's *They Live by Night*. Each film has a guy finding love and wanting to put his past behind him but he gets dragged back in. Their endings are quite different.
>
But Burt never was a criminal to start with like Farley Granger was! The only similarities I see between those two films is the couple on the lam.
> That is true. But we don't see the change in him like we do in *Let Us Live*. Well, actually, we do. We see him go from miserable to feeling better. I like it the other way in film noir!
>
You're so incredibly picky.
-
> Great point! They are caught. They know who they are and they know where the world is going. It's going away from them. And if Valance is done away with, Tom could be done away with. And what happens is...
>
Precisely. Even the same can be said of Luke Plummer and the Ringo Kid. Except making things even more complex, the hero does settle down but he has to leave civilization to do it. He and Dallas are going to form a home and family, but as outsiders.
> What's interesting about both *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance* and *Shane* is that the villain comes to represent two men's fears.
What about Frank (Richard Boone) in The Tall T? Is he one of those villains?
-
Thank you, Jackie. You made some good ones in our earlier conversation about the movie.
I'm sorry about the formatting, I just fixed it. This new system in tricky if you don't double-check your work.
-
>KISS THE SPOILERS OFF MY HANDS
>
> I will not! It's a trick! You'll slap me!
You're the trickster, Harry Fabian.
>
> *What tree?*
> The "Love is a Many-Splendored Crime" tree! They go traipsing up the hill.
That part was a little "romantic", I know.
> I think the film is hoping we take the ending to be positive, redemptive, and hopeful. The girl wins out with the guy and he turns himself in. Yuck! This ain't *Night and the City* !
>
The girl wins out? They may not believe her story, it's pretty far fetched. In any case, he's going to do time and she's going to be dragged through the courts on her own account and his. They may never get work after it's all over, how will they survive? I think the movie paints the world as rather unprepared to deal with people like Burt who are screwed up from the war. Their solution is to beat him and throw him in the clink. He did what he did, but it was because he's messed up and not a real criminal, not yet anyway, or he'd be like Robert Newton: too canny to get caught. Newton remained free the whole time, even watching the trial, while he was the real criminal yet society protected him and did nothing for Burt who went out to kill for that society in the war.
> That one isn't that good, either!
But it's definitely an early version of *The Wrong Man*. I do like the ending to *Let Us Live*, though. I like how Brick's (Henry Fonda) demeanor has been changed for the worse.>
Yes, and Burt's had been too, by war especially, but also by a system that seemed as harsh as the concentration camp he was in.
Edited by: MissGoddess on Oct 5, 2011 12:41 PM
-
> I'm glad the discussion has you wanting to see the movie again. Did you order it from Netflix?
>
Yes, it's next after *Earrings...*, but I still have to finish one other DVD, too, to get *Earrings...*.
> How so? What does Jack Wilson represent to Shane and Liberty to Tom?
>
I think they both represent living by the gun, and relatively unfettered, vs. living by the law/legal process. All these men can't be tied down, are not part of the "civilized" way of life. It's just that the heroes know it and even regret it or want to be a part of it, but they can't.
-
FYI:
I haven't looked at all the links since I have the DVD, but YouTube apparently has Ophul's *Letter from an Unknown Woman* here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY1tSfCTEeI
For those who are fans of Ophuls, tragic love stories, or want even more Joan Fontaine, this is one not to miss.
-
KISS THE SPOILERS OFF MY HANDS
What tree? And the ending isn't exactly happy. I mean, you can hope but based on how he was treated by the courts and law already...and what he did in the beginning, they don't have too much guarantee that their story will be believed. I loved it, it reminded me of the one with Maureen and Henry Fonda, and you didn't like that one, either. Bad taste!
-
> I'm taking him back to the orphanage! I hope Connie Towers is there and sings to me.
>
Oh, boy.
> I can't imagine you wanting Joan to be harmed! Joan plays "mousey" so very well.
>
I'm just joking, but she's not quite what you're used to in this one.
> That's superb! I never thought of it that way! You're right on it. It's not good enough for her to just be with him. She needs it all.
>
Well, Gable should make living in a place called Prairie Dog Creek palatable, but anyone else...would give a woman pause.
And those screencaps say it all! Thank you for posting them.
So I guess you were not crazy about *Kiss the Blood Off My Hands*, Joan again!
-
> We can agree on that much.
>
>
> "Adam's Rib" is that battle of the sexes as seen in 1949 eyes but they work so well together. Tracy, at times, can be a bit thick headed and Hepburn "preachy" but they're fun. Under it all in the movie and their life you can feel the love. At least I can.
>
They're one of the most believable couples I've seen. Not perfectly in agreement always, and that's part of the reality.
-
By the way, in *Flying Leathernecks*, Wayne and Ryan both play characters with names that show up multiple times in their career: Wayne is "Kirby" and Ryan is "Griff".
-
> He interrupted the film!
>
Poor Kris!
>
>
> You make it sound interesting! I'm not sure I've seen Kate being "causey." I like that Movieman recommended it and you're opinion is a bit different. Perfect.
>
I bet you will love it. I do like Tracy's comedy, he has two scenes that are just superb. Kate's dumbfounded reactions in both seem genuine, and I like her for it. What's so nice about the two of them is they are so well balanced. Neither one overshadows the other and both are interesting people to watch, so different, but protective of each other in a way that feels genuine.
But I do like Spence with Myrna a smidge more.
> Wow! Poor Joan! Now I have to see that one, too! It's Nick Ray. Woohoo!
>
I guess. I'm not crazy about it. Joan is too transparent which makes me wonder over all the people around her. You'll see. Wow, lots of Fontaine going around these days.
> Ryan is mostly deferential in the film. He only goes after Cameron Mitchell. That's nowhere near as exciting as clashing with Gable. I do think Ryan is miscast in the film, as you say.
>
The real fun is between Gable and Jane. She digs her spurs in but good.
> That's another I wish to see! But I want to get the DVD of that one. I'm very much looking forward to it because of Ryan and Wayne being two different kinds of men.
>
Well don't wait too long, it's Nick Ray month THIS month.
> We know what you would do, Peachy! I liked Jane's little songs. She has a sweet voice. I like that gal.
>
I love that she can't forgive him for rejecting her, lol. She knows he's rejected her, too. I mean, she knows she could have him on his terms, but to her that's as much as a rejection because he won't cowtow to her dreams, so she loves to provoke him every moment she can afterward. Her drunk scene is hilarious.
And it kills me how he constantly calls her "your Responsibility".
-
> Oh! Yeah, I was glad to see Sam take care of him. I didn't like seeing Chris (George Kezas). That's the "horrible" I speak of.
>
I thought he was sweet. You don't like children!
> That's really fascinating. I pretty much like Kate in most everything, I'm coming to know. I like it when she's "girly" and I also love it when she has a tongue. I like her.
>
I don't like her too "causey", as Tracy says of her in *Adam's Rib*. She gets on my nerves, then. You'll probably like that one since it's pretty much comedy straight through. All the feminism stuff bores me, though and I'm not enamored of Judy Holliday. Her part in the movie annoys me, too. I liked Jean Hagen, though, and David Wayne. Spence saves the film for me, in the end. I can deal with anything for his sake.
> It's one of the most disappointing Ryan roles that I've seen. He's neutered, for the most part. I still like seeing him, though.
>
He's even more so in *Born to be Bad*. I would have liked it better if he'd strangled Joan Fonatine.
> I do! I do, Nella!
>
In a way, his character reminds me a little of Harry Carey's back in his western days. He was the good-bad man with his own code, and extremely unpretentious (but the bravest one, of course). Ryan's "Nathan Stark" is the new breed, flashier, basically self-made but then stands behind hired guns. This is where Ryan is somewhat miscast, because he's clearly a man of action as much Gable, or more so because he's in better shape, ha. Still, it's great seeing the two of them. I like them better together I think than Wayne and Ryan in *Flying Leathernecks*, which I guess TCM will be showing as part of the Nicholas Ray salute. But then that may be because I just don't care for a war movie as much.
I love Jane. "I wish I was a peachtree, a growin' in the ground, and ev'ry time my sweetie passed by, I'd shake some peaches down...." She put over a song and seems so comfortable around all these men. I know between Gable, Ryan and Walsh she must have had her hands full.
-
> *The Talk of the Town* and *Woman of the Year* are two films where I liked one side of the funny/serious but not the other. I enjoy the serious of *The Talk of the Town*. I like the emotion in the film. The comedy? Not really. With *Woman of the Year*, I was enjoying the comedy and the romance and then Sam (Spence) turns sourpuss on me and it becomes serious. I didn't like it. So Stevens has been struggling to make both the funny and serious work for me.
>
I'm not as fond of ToTT as others.
> *One of my favorite moments in WoY is when Tracy dispenses with "little Nermal".*
>
> I didn't like any of those scenes. They were painful to watch. I understand the entire commentary on Tess and her kind not taking parenthood seriously. It was purely a "thing to do." I get that. But what a horrible watch it was.
>
Why was it "horrible"? And "little Nermal" was her secretary, not the boy, in case you confused the two. He reminds me of Manhattan men these days. Very modern.
I'm not as crazy about the movie as I used to be, because I'm not as into Kate as I once was. Now I prefer other things she did. I'm even starting to like *Sea of Grass* and *Keeper of the Flame*, two of the least successful films they did together. I haven't seen *State of the Union* in a while, but I'm not fond of politics in movies. I remember Angela Lansbury playing a sort of warm up to Mrs. Iselin.
> I was looking forward to watching *The Tall Men*. It features three performers I really like, after all. Well, I definitely enjoyed The King and Jane is very good but poor Robert was shackled. But the reason I was lukewarm about the film is the actual story. There wasn't enough "meat on the bone" for me. It's a rather empty western.
>
It's an unpretentious, entertaining oater. It's not trying to send any message. I find it very enjoyable though I agree, almost anyone else could have played Ryan's role, at least anyone who's comfortable in westerns. I figured you might like Gable's philosphy in the movie.
-
> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}I also like what you said earlier (somewhere in this thread) about this movie sort of depecting life back then as it "never was".. but can sometimes be portrayed in film.
>
It is a fantasy, or the "legend", but there is truth about human nature, especially in Billy's understanding of people who don't fit in, whether it's Jeff (Stepin' Fetchit), Bob Gillis (David Landau), or Ellie May. His reaction to his sister-in-law's snobbishness says it all:
He knows how unwelcome and even hostile small (minded) town people in such an "Eden" can be. All three Ford/Rogers movies seem to hone in on that rather nicely.
> (PS: I meant to mention that I also saw a lot of really fine "Fordian" moments in this story too.. many that put me in mind of some of his later films yet to come)
Yes, I think they're among the most personal he did in the early thirties. He seemed to have found his most kindred spirit since Harry Carey in Will Rogers.
I can't watch two of them until Christmastime. They are on my X-Mas list. But I do have the other two. They have to be better than Crappy and Poopy! 
The Annual FrankGrimes Torture Thread
in Your Favorites
Posted
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*PUT THAT DOWN! It's empty, anyway.
*
>
> I already found that out! Dammit! It's time to scheme Jackie.
>
Oh no! Watch out Menzies! Hank is coming after you!
> *Poor butterscotch, you obviously snubbed her.*
>
> She's busy entertaining Dean-O!
>
Ha!! Ring-a-ding-ding.