MissGoddess
-
Posts
22,766 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by MissGoddess
-
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*I bet if Margaret Lockwood had been the leading lady, I'd like it more.*
>
> Bah, humbug!
>
She may not be blonde, but you like Maggie, too, admit it. She's enchanting. You and your dumb ice queens.
> *Madeleine is gorgeous, but I find her a wee bit chilly.*
>
> So she's like you, Chilly!
I am not I'm very hot tempered, more's the pity.
-
I really need to re-watch *Rich and Strange*. I thought it an odd, unsettling film even though it had comedy moments. I've seen it exactly twice, and I distinctly remember the second time being unprepared for the humor. I had remembered it from my first viewing as a drama! I bring this up because I still only remember the serious aspects of it, I have forgotten ALL of the comedy.
I wonder if I'd find it as, well, "strange", the third time.By the way, the American title is *East of Shanghai*. What a dull title! Maybe they were trying to make it sound more "exotic" or figured most Americans wouldn't know the quote from Shakespeare (I didn't at first!)
P.S. CinemAva, you asked about early Hitch. NOw, if you're going to call him your favorite director, you need to eat your brussell's spr...I mean watch some early Hitch. Personally, I'm with Jackie that *Sabotage* is worth a second look for you.
My favorite early Hitch in order of preference:
The Lady Vanishes
Sabotage
Rich and Strange
The Manxman (you might enjoy that one, too)
I like others, but they kind of are all on the same level of preference. I know *The 39 Steps* is a near-masterpiece, but much as I like the two leads and enjoy the movie every time I watch it, for some reason it doesn't thrill me. I bet if Margaret Lockwood had been the leading lady, I'd like it more. Madeleine is gorgeous, but I find her a wee bit chilly. Maggie is so delightfully minxy, she reminds me a little of Vivien Leigh, and that's the highest compliment I can pay her.
But yes, *Sabotage* and if you watch it I will watch it again...I want to and need a good 'scuse.
Edited by: MissGoddess on Sep 20, 2011 10:25 PM
-
I can't wait to see *Rope of Sand*, though it doesn't sound anything like I expected either, T-Mave. I only remember it had Burt and it was the first time I ever saw one of his movies, at least one of his earlier flicks. So it's Casablanca-like? Should be interesting.
> When it all calms down I'm going to write something on "The Sniper." (You all must be thrilled.)
I am. *The Sniper* is scary!
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}TWO FLAGS WEST SPOILED
>
> I agree. The wanting of a battle is what Kenniston pines for. He ends up creating one.
>
He's like those people who aren't happy without conflict and drama. He just can't take life as it comes.
>
> I see him as a lousy one. He was too proud and for the wrong reasons. Tucker (Joseph Cotten) was the good officer.
>
Tucker was great, and you can see the difference by the way his men were willing to follow him everywhere.
> That really was a wonderful scene. It's really messed up, when you think about it. Kenniston's act cost people their lives and created his own demise which makes him both tragic and heroic. Crazy.
>
That is indeed crazy. Especially for so proud a man to admit in such a large way his responsibility for all that happened.
>
> *Ha! He sounded rather like an old time Jewish patriarch at that point (it was once an Israelite custom that the widow marry her husband's brother. By the way, Chandler was Jewish.
).*>
>
> The film calls attention to this, remember?
>
It does? How? His character is Jewish?
> This is true. But how many indian attacks in westerns do we feel are completely warranted? I found it to be remarkable.
>
Not all certainly, but quite a few. But then I've seen hundreds of westerns.
> I just thought it was really interesting to see the southerners versus the northerners and us, the viewers, siding with the southerners.
>
I think a lot of movies showed sympathy to the southerners in spirit, even when they were clear about the point of view on issues.
You should look out for one called *The Raid*.
-
Jackie, early Burt is not all gone yet if you haven't seen *Rope of Sand*. It's on its way to me from ClassicFlix. I'm excited because I haven't seen it since forever. I remember liking it alot. I hope it won't be disappointing.
-
lol, I was most interested in *Champagne* because of the title, too. It was okay, I wasn't bowled over. It didn't feel very Hitch, but I should probably watch it again.
FYI, three of his silents, including the previously unavailable *The Pleasure Garden*, are coming to DVD. TPG is Hitch's first credited feature.
-
I'm not sure what my next movie will be, either. I'm in a serious rut. Any suggestions? Speaking of young Burt, *Kiss the Blood Off My Hands* was super. I hope more people see it. It was funny seeing him in England.
-
Say, you're no slacker, I saw that list in the torture thread, you've been watching tons of movies. I think I have seen three complete films in the last three weeks. And I don't have the legitimate reasons you do!
*Sabotage* is a wonderful transition film for Hitch from silent to sound. It's one of his best of any period.
As I have mentioned, *Rich and Strange* is a favorite of mine and I agree it's uniquely disturbing. In a way, *Under Capricorn* is a return to this kind of deep examination of a marriage and the pressures that can tear two people apart. In the case of R&S, it was getting caught up in materialism and how worldly distractions can make you think what you have is boring or not good enough. It's a very modern film. In UC, you have the couple where each thinks they aren't good enough for the other.
I hope you can see *The Manxman* one day, I think you'd really like it. Very underrated film about a love triangle. The female lead character is a restless one. It's on YouTube, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSYlsWTK3OQ
I don't have the sound up at work, so I'm not even sure if this movie was a silent, I can't remember. Grimes would know.
Edited by: MissGoddess on Sep 16, 2011 11:16 AM
-
Hi movieman!
I have rohanaka to thank for lifting this movie up in my estimation. I saw it years ago and only recall disappointment from it. This second viewing was much more interesting and I got to know the characters better. I thought Hitch was digging a little deeper than he usually does. That's not to say he doesn't present us with three dimensional characters, and he certainly was interested in psychology, but I often feel he singled out certain psychological "types" or scenarios that were thrilling and bizarre. This story is more conventional in those terms. The conflicts are really not about crime and murder, or sexual jealousy or stuff like that. Which makes it unique. I'm always fascinated by directors wandering into areas the public doesn't expect and may be disappointed by. Like seeing John Wayne in a leisure suit. Sometimes that's fun!
Okay, bad example. But you know what I mean. I miss Molo! I'd love to hear his take on this movie, too. Something tells me he's with you and Grimes. Though, I can picture Gloria taking on a role like Ingrid's.
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}we'll all need a great big Burt to cuddle up with.
And NOW. It's bleedin' cold outside!!!!!!!!! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!!!
-
I'll send you postcards, Mai-Tai's, whatever you like only they'll have to be make-believe for now, like my trip.
bundle up! It's supposed to get into the *40s* tonight, and I don't mean the Burt Lancaster-I-Walk-Alone '40s.
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}*Even worse off than Jerry!*
>
> Oh, I don't know. Is it better to have loved and lost or not loved at all?
>
Let's ask Tennyson:
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
> No! That would be horrible! Talk about being a piece of meat!
>
You're a lazy ham already so this is perfect, you won't have to do any real work ever again.
> They are definitely survivors. I just don't find Scarlett anywhere close to Suzie when it comes sweet and endearing.
>
>
> *And would hate each other on site.
*>
>
> Definitely! You're a Scarlett and Suzie!
>
>
Scarlett is sweetly endearing when she's crying.
> Now how could a Hawaiian beach ever compare to NYC?
>
To quote another poet,
How do I love the beach,
Let me count the ways...
-
> I don't have a wife and I'm not on the rebound!
>
Even worse off than Jerry!
> Yes, there's a lot of "Jerry" with me. I'm one who can't pick up the phone.
>
Pass a bar exam and you won't have to pick up a phone, your coffee or even your laundry for the rest of your life.
> That's true. I always see Scarlett as being so very selfish and self-absorbed. But I know Suzie can be this way, too.
>
She's what Scarlett was before the war. And both are survivors.
And would hate each other on site.
>
> That sounds good to me. Are you going to start to watch the show?
>
I tink I will once the weather takes a turn into THE GREAT EVIL (BELOW 65 DEGREES) and I officially descend into my ritual void of seasonal depression.
Seeing some shows set in Hawaii may be just the antidote to TGE.
And thinking how I can move there.
-
> I loved the beginning of the film. I loved how pathetic Jerry was. He was so frightened and lonely.
>
He was you!
> *A Scarlett O'Hara with a little more heart.
* >
> You think so? What are their similarities?
>
She has that same flirty, childlike vanity as well as a practical streak.
> *I recently rented the pilot to "Hawaii Five-O" because I saw it featured Nancy.*
>
>
> That's awesome! She's really cute. Did you like the pilot?
>
I did! It was wild because it's nothing really like the way the show develops. It was literally a James Bond/007 movie, including an actor who played a Bond villain, I beleieve. The same guy who played the lead Communist in *The Manchurian Candidate*. I like him, he's always in a good mood even when he's being evil.
-
I can tell by the tone of your replies you didn't like the movie any better this time.
> It was a very bold journey for Hitch, no doubt about it.
>
Slam one: Damned with faint praise.
>
> It really is a strange little love story. Sacrifice... gone awry.
>
Slam two: be"little"ing
>
> What I took out of this recent viewing of the film was the shame, guilt, and insecurities of Sam (Joseph Cotten) and Hattie (Ingrid Bergman). Sam cannot get past the point of his being a "stable boy." He feels he is unworthy of Hattie. The presence of Charles (Michael Wilding) only heightens this great insecurity of his. Hattie is carrying the guilt of Sam's sacrifice. She's been torturing herself over it and sorely wants to please him, to make up for all the time they lost. It's just he won't allow her to do so because of his feeling unworthy. He's put up a wall.
>
I like all your points about Sam. I'm remember that he was very defensive from the start when he meets Adare in the bank, is it? He offers him the land scheme but he seems to have a chip on his shoulder the entire time.
>
> I felt the story was mostly about Sam more than anyone else. Charles (Michael Wilding) was actually saving Sam more so than Hattie, but he does so for Hattie. More sacrifice.
>
I bet if I watched it again I would view it more that way, too. This time I saw mostly Charles, Millie and Hattie.
>
> It is quite vague as to what sent her spiraling into depression. My guess is her guilt. That horrible little hut down by the docks with the sweating walls was her own prison cell.
>
Possibly. And her own guilt and fears probably magnified all the bad things, especially since she was alone, without even a servant, she who had probably never even dressed herself in her entire life.
> She mentions how Sam tried to make up for it when he was released but she says it was "no good."
>
I wonder why it was "no good".
>
> Hey, I like that! I agree.
>
Slam three: agreeing with me.
-
> I've yet to see Kate's middle career (with Spence). I
She's a mix in those, always very smart and capable and occasionally vulnerable (Sea of Grass in particular---good story, but something fails in the execution). As Jackie mentions, *Summertime* is the ultimate example and it's her best performance I believe.
I first knew of her from *Holiday*, which fit Kate's real-life persona of being free-spirited.
It's funny, though she was not bound by most conventions, I still always think of her as being a strict, disciplined New England Yankee type. Just as hyde-bound to her own notions as anyone else. Extremely stubborn, HUGE ego, but smart and funny. I can't dislike her as I frequently do so many others with her qualities.
> How is she in *Little Women* ?
>
Tom boy.
> *She could have maybe played Charlotte in Home Before Dark come to think of it.*
>
>
> Yes, I suppose the "young girl" Kate would have been able to pull that off.
>
No, middle aged Kate. She was too theatrical in youth for that part.
> *At the Quality Street point she's the young woman defining herself, later on she'd play lots of misfit spinsters.*
>
>
> I've only seen her in *Suddenly, Last Summer* with the latter.
>
She's not very vulnerable in that one.
> You just like the outfits! I like how short they are! You also love the atmosphere, I believe. So do I, actually.
>
I'm surprised you picked up on it.
> I love the psychology of the entire film. I love the insecurities and how they prevent each from moving forward... together. They would be better off together.
>
We don't meet the wife so it's easy to prefer him with the girl. I get the feeling she ends up with another one of her loser types.
> And you're a kook, too! I didn't know they were an item. I wouldn't wish to be with Shirley. She's really messy.
>
I'll say! He almost left his wife for her, but didn't, which I think is good. He's one of the few to leave Hollywood with the same wife he started with.
> You better believe it! I'm definitely a "****," minus the business-minded approach to life.
>
Like you, I enjoy it for the byplay between him and the girl, and it's always a pleasure to see him with Spence.
> He's the big bad wolf that women love to fall for. Y'all work your magic on him, though.
>
I love it when he says that line in *It Happened One Night*..."Who's afraid of the big bad wolf, the big bad wolf..." Hilarious.
>
> Do you wish to talk about it in "Western Rambles"? I actually need a refresher with the film. It's kind of slipped my mind.
>
*DARK COMMAND spoiler*
Sure, if you like. I feel like it's a movie that could have really been something terrific in the hands of a stronger director. Too many standard shots of "Cantrell" leading his raiding parties...and Walter's no action guy so those should have been avoided, frankly, and instead they could have used more verbal fencing scenes between him and Duke. Interesting that he and Duke never actually get to the confrontation the whole movie is apparently leading up to. That does make it less predictable.
> I liked some of his quips. His overly made-up look bothered me. I get the masculine disconnect whenever I see that. He's a brilliant dancer. I was amazed by his foot speed. Overall, I think he's all right. It's just he's not really my kind of guy and his world isn't my kind of world. It's more of a "female world," to me. I prefer Maurice Chevalier's musical world. That is more masculine, to me.
>
*Follow the Fleet* is definitely more you, then. It isn't all nightclubs, at least not glitzy ones. Oh, and look out for the first song sung by Ginger, it's one of my favorites ("Let Yourself Go").
-
> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote}and How to Marry A Millionaire.... he is so elegant and lovely in that one.
I can't believe Lauren chooses Cameron Mitchell over Bill.
-
Hi Jackie---I can believe she was a mix of both confidence and insecurities. She had a loud "bark" but I can see that quivering chin never far off, as you well described.
If it weren't for her ability to convey vulnerability, I don't think she'd be nearly so interesting as an actress. -
!That's brilliant Lady B! I forgot any Hitch/Lewton connexx...I'm sure they absorbed (stole) a lot! ;-) frome each other.
-
Sammy was also pretty naughty in *Destry Rides Again*.
-
Good eve-ening, Ro,
> Sorry to be so late getting back to the conversation. My week got away from me the last several days and I am only just now getting a free moment to hop back on here.
>
I hope you didn't tire yourself out. Take it easy.
> Ha.. most of my "familiarity" with Dickens is actually with the MOVIES (either motion picture or PBS films) that have been made from his stories. Fact is I have only likely read two or three.. hmm.. Great Expectaions and.. Eek.. I may have only actually read ONE.. ha. I am getting too old to keep track) ANYWAY.. his books just make TERRIFC movies.. there is always a hint of mystery.. a taste of suspense.. but also deep, thought-provoking insight into human nature... the best and worst of it. (Oh wait.. AHA!! A Tale of Two Cities. yes. .ok.. it IS at least two that I have read.. ha)
>
You're ahead of me! I think I've only read two, and that was back in high school, "A Christmas Carol" and "Great Expectations". The one I might have liked is "A Tale of Two Cities", because I adore Ronald Colman as Sydney. What a truly great character. In some ways, Sam is like him. He loves a girl he thinks of as above him.
> There are all sorts of interesting characters (major ones and minor ones) that weave together in and out of each other's lives and each one seems to have some sort of impact on the other. And there always seems to be some sort of hidden past that needs to be resolved for at at least one of the major characters. And I do like the twists of fate and the "strange course of justice" (as you say) that run through a lot of his stories. Sooner or later in almost any Dickens tale (at least the ones I have seen and/or read) those who have been wronged often get vindicated.. and those who NEED to will usually end up getting their "come-uppance"... somehow. I just like the way he works those sorts of things out.
>
I do like that and I always admired the complexity of Dickens. His stories, characters and plots were very deep from what little I was exposed to. It's funny I never really familiarized myself with him when I was for years such an avid reader of 19th Century British classics. I read virtually everything Thackery, Austen, Trollope, the Brontes, Fanny Burney and several others wrote...but not Dickens. I had this impression of prisons and poor houses with him and I think I wanted romance and satirical comedies of manners.
> So.. getting back to.. ummmm.. what were we talking about?? ha.. OH yeah.. Under Capricorn.. I just sort of felt a hint of his sort of storytelling in the way this story unfolded as well.
>
I can see that, too.
> Ha.. he did like to get a lot of mileage out of the "shock value" in certain things.. ha. But I also like how he is known for so many creative filming techniques. (like the shot he did of Hattie looking at her reflection in the glass of the French doors) that just shouted "Hitchcock" to me. Way cool.
>
It was a wonderful shot, and I my favorite along with the scene in the bedroom when she watches Millie pour the sleeping draught into her drink (so many people poisining drinks in his movies and tv show!).
-
Place a pillow on the kitchen chair...and some brownies on a plate next to the computer.
-
> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}Kiss the Blood Off My Hands
>
> Ugh.. just the title is creeping me out. ha. I need to check into it though from the way you are making it sound.
>
> (sorry to post over you though. little missy.. we must have been typing at the same time)
Hi There, Mrs Quantrill!
Oh, I think you would like this movie, Ro. I admit I pre-judged it by the title, too! That's one of the reasons I didn't run to watch it. I figured Burt was playing a "lug" and that it was going to be some lurid gangster meller. I don't think I realized Joan Fontaine was the leading lady or that it was set in London. It's really good, I do recommend you give it a look.
-
>
> I'm afraid it's a coming.
>
Don't say that!!
> "Livvy" is Phoebe's (Kate) younger alter-ego. It's the girl she believes her love really wishes to be with.
>
You make it sound interesting. I'll have to watch next time it's on.
> Especially that one. While Mellie isn't actively seeking a meaningul love, she comes to find out she's missing that. Her husband really doesn't care about her. She's just someone he returns home to. Dobbs (Charles Bronson) spends all his time with her. He's taken the time to get to know her. He has ulterior motives, but those motives still provide her with more love and attention than her husband provides her with.
>
Well, you even found more depth in it than I have after all the times I've seen it. That's not fair!
And I can see the truth of it. Their little game of cat and mouse meant more that it seems.
>
> No, not really. I thought the film does a good job of keeping you in the dark with who Dobbs really is and what he's really up to.
>
I think so. He is an enigma.
>
> That little moment gives the film heart. That and the bullet. Funny how that can equate "heart."
>
Objects mean a lot in the movie. The walnuts, the bags, the button on her dress, the bullet. All nice touches.
> She was really interesting. The flashbacks to Mellie's youth were surprising. Some "*Marnie*," there.
>
Oh, yes, very Marnie. And Dobbs figuring her out was rather like Mark trying to figure out Marnie. I wouldn't be surprised if the director was influenced by Hitch. The thing with the bags makes me think of Hitch, for some reason. A sort of "MacGuffin".
I wonder if I'd find it as, well, "strange", the third time.
The World of Alfred Hitchcock
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
> She's okay.
>
She is NOT just "okay".
> I love ice creams, I mean, queens! The dumber the better!
>
Like your wit?