Arkadin

A bit of 2G:

Hi MissG. *Once a Thief* is OOP and to my knowlege has not been issued on video in the U.S.A.. Here's a link to a place that sells copies (It's actually listed in their top ten): http://tinyurl.com/5ktmpa

Frank, yes I have both films. *Night* used to show on AMC back in the old days. As for *Woman on the Run*, Alpha has it quite cheap. Quality is not that great, but it's a nice noir with Ann Sheridan to boot!

I edited before I saw you posted and added *Once a Thief* (1965). This film recently showed on Jack Palance's day on Summer of the Stars. Very interesting Noir by Ralph Nelson starring Van Heflin, Ann Margaret, and Alain Delon. Some extra pics and posters: Here's more info (and pics) from the Morlock blog: http://moviemorlocks.com/2008/06/13/one-less-split/

Thanks. Here are some more recent finds:

Hey cigarjoe, I was finally able to watch *The Great Silence* and it was everything you said and more. Beautiful score and great cinematography. I didn't expect it to end like it did, which really threw me for a loop! I loved it! I also have *Keoma* and will be watching it soon. I'll let you know how things play out.

Hmm, I didn't watch as I have the DVD. That's pretty sad on TCM's part, although I doubt it was intentional. Argento's films were heavily cut and edited in the U.S. and I've seen prints of *Suspiria* that had almost all the gore cut out. Chances are they might not have known what they were getting. I was disturbed myself by clicking on this thread and finding my images not showing! I moved a bunch of stuff into folders yesterday, but did not delete anything. I had no idea this would happen. Here's a little something to make us both feel feel better:

Oops! Double post. Message was edited by: Arkadin

A great list, but perhaps even more importantly, great impassioned writing that is discriptive and unique. It's one thing to name films, another to make a convincing case that becomes a selling point that will have many of the uninitiated willing to part with their most prized possession--two hours of their time. Well done.

Welcome to the John Garfield fan club. My personal favorite is *Force of Evil* (1948). As for why it's my favorite, that would take an entire thread to develop and explain. For the essentials, I'd suggest you start with these: *Four Daughters* (1938) *Castle on the Hudson* (1940) *Saturday's Children* (1940) *The Sea Wolf* (1940) *Out of the Fog* (1941) *Dangerously They Live* (1942) *The Fallen Sparrow* (1943) *Humoresque* (1946) *Nobody Lives Forever* (1946) *Body and Soul* (1947) *We Were Strangers* (1949) *The Breaking Point* (1950) *Under My Skin* (1950) *He Ran all the Way* (1951) Others to explore: *Daughters Courageous* (1939) *Blackwells Island* (1939) *Dust be My Destiny* (1939) *Air Force* (1943) *Beyond Two Worlds* (1944) *Pride of the Marines* (1945)--Parts of this film are really hokey, but Garfield is great. *The Postman Rings Twice* (1946)--Another wonderful performance, but the movie is not as good as Visconti's original film. *Gentleman's Agreement* (1947)--Again not a great movie, but Garfield is exceptional.

Glad you had a chance to see it. *Deep Red* is my personal favorite of Argento's work and definitely influenced the American 80?s slasher craze. However, those films cannot compare to its rich cinematography, complexity, or depth of characters. Argento?s killers (especially in his Giallo era) have their own reasons for violence and it?s usually the discovery of that reason that unmasks them. His work is also about perception in the sense that we are often fooled by what we see. Do we see truth or do we rationalize and re-interpret our view to create reality as we would wish it to be? Certainly *Bird With the Crystal Plumage* (1970), *Four Flies on Gray Velvet* (1972), and *Deep Red* are built on this principal. *Cat O Nine Tails* (1971) and *Suspiria* (1977) use such elements in smaller segments that add to the whole of the film. Thus, in Argento?s movies, we are constantly thinking and reasoning, while his imitators simply choose to shock.

A little over a year ago at SSO, we had a contest where we each named our top 25 films. Here was my list (in no particular order): *The Temptress* (1928) *The Passion of Anna* (1970) *Umberto D.* (1953) *Mon Oncle* (1958) *Black Narcissus* (1947) *Day of Wrath* (1943) *Monsieur Verdoux* (1947) *Europa 51* (1952) *The Lion in Winter* (1968) *Porco Rosso* (1992) *The Mummy* (1932) *El Cid* (1961) *McCabe & Mrs. Miller* (1971) *Three Comrades* (1938) *Ju Dou* (1990) *Out of the Past* (1947) *Citizen Kane* (1941) *The Wild Bunch* (1969) *Night of the Hunter* (1955) *Claire's Knee* (1970) *Foolish Wives* (1922) *Rope* (1948) *Harvey* (1950) *Requiem for a Heavyweight* (1962) *Force of Evil* (1948)

> {quote:title=Bargar wrote:}{quote}I also would like to believe that there is enough intelligence in a majority of people who are faced with media presentations, to discern the true from the false. I'd like to think that was true as well, but history shows a much different picture. Both *Network* and *Face in the Crowd* portray an audience that is very similar to modern culture where reality television reigns supreme. While I certainly agree that there are many more choices today (which is a good thing), perhaps a closer look at the quality of those choices would say much more about our world and how we choose to define ourselves.

I think the bottom line of all three films is the fact that in each case, society found itself programmed and manipulated through media. It?s pretty incredible when you think that *Network* presented the idea of a global economy 30 years ago. Personally, I think that these films are very relevant today. We live in a world of increasing media coverage where so many things are not represented to us as they are--factual, but along political lines, personal opinions, and for monetary gain. This is nothing new, but coverage is so swift and the availability of having it 24 hours a day (instead of just a couple of papers to read) has intensified its influence. Are people ever really who they present themselves to be? Are situations in our country (wars, legislation) what they are presented to us to be? Is there an underlying motive and if so what is it? The frightening aspect of each film, is an audience that is primed and conditioned?even indoctrinated--to accept these situations. People lose their objectivity and the ability to think for themselves. Max realizes this in his relation to Diana. She is cold, unfeeling, not driven by moral principals or truth, but ratings. This extends to her personal life as well, where Max finally realizes that to embrace her is to be groundless and adrift. Truth has become a matter of convenience, which enevitably leads to Beal?s assassination

Oops! double post. Message was edited by: Arkadin

Vitajex: Whatcha doin to me indeed!

Halloween might have been last month, but there?s no rest for the wicked in Dario Argento?s *Suspiria*, which shows tonight on TCM Underground. A supernatural horror tale about a coven of witches, Argento creates something quite different from typical slasher fare by using beautiful colors and eerie music in unique ways. The result is something you?re not likely to forget. Classic film fans will recognize Joan Bennett in one of her last roles and also the rare use of outmoded Technicolor film to achieve a vibrant look reminiscent of Michael Powell?s *Black Narcissus* (1947) or Fellini's *Juliet of the Spirits* (1965). While most genre films used orchestration, Argento eschewed tradition and chose to continue working with The Goblins, an Italian rock band (their first pairing was the Giallo masterpiece *Deep Red* [1975]). If you?re looking for something a bit different tonight, fall under the spell of *Suspiria*. You might want to leave the lights on though?

As I alluded to earlier, I see a common thread running through *Network* (1976), *Face in the Crowd* (1957), and *Triumph of the Will* (1934). All deal with voyeurism on a grand scale, but it is the viewer--not the subject?that becomes the ultimate victim. The focus of each film is self-identification. The subject viewed, becomes a mirror in which the viewer sees himself. Individual hopes and dreams are transferred and projected in the viewers gaze. In short, the viewer loses his identity, which is the actual objective of the subject. Identifying with the audience (in pretense) is the secret of the manipulators initial appeal. Lonesome Rhodes uses his down to earth charm to relate to the common man, while Howard Beal articulates the public?s rage in a cynical post-Nixon era. Hitler by contrast, is seen in *Triumph of the Will* as a man of the people who has become deity. Nothing less than a Christ figure. Note that each film works from the same principal: to stifle individualism and independence. Hitler, like Lenin, actually created a situation of dependence. The viewer is encouraged not to think, but to instead project all upon the subject. The subject embodies one?s feelings and needs. The subject tells one how to think. The bottom line is removal of choice and control. The hunter becomes the hunted and like most prey, is unaware of danger because attention is cleverly focused elsewhere. Howard Beal?s title ?The Mad Prophet of the Airwaves? is a perfect example (along with Sybil the Soothsayer), in that it offers the idea of predestination. Why make choices if the future can be foretold? This also feeds the illusion that the viewer can be in charge of his own destiny when in fact, he is more tightly bound to his subject. *Face in the Crowd* offers a similar temptation with Vitajex, a product hawked by Lonesome Rhodes that is sold as a means of sexual prowess (the pills are actually just caffeine) for domination of the fairer sex. Here we see enslavement of the mind extending to the body as well. The use of live audience is also an essential component. Live crowds affirm statements and prime the mind for suggestion. In the fictitious works, signs are actually used to tell the public when to applaud or laugh. *Face in the Crowd* has Rhodes developing a machine with canned crowd noise to eliminate a live audience altogether. This technique has been used for years, namely in situation comedies where if we hear someone else laughing, the joke must be funny. If thousands say Sieg Heil ?it must be truth. Youth is connected in each film as well. Hitler is seen inspecting German youth as Lonesome Rhodes judges baton twirlers. *Network* has younger executive Diana corrupting old guard Max, who should know better. Of the three, *Network* is different in the fact that Beal is still essentially a puppet. Lonesome Rhodes and Hitler began in this manner and it was assumed they could be easily managed and controlled, but tables were turned when the creations outgrew their masters. All three became demagogues that ultimately had to be destroyed. Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity. Whoever would like to appear deep for the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see the bottom: the crowd is so timid and afraid of going into the water.--Nietzche

As far as murders, it's equally divided between blondes and redheads. I would say Pamela Green has a pretty big part in this. Almost as much time and lines as Shearer. An interesting thing to consider however, is how the actors playing the roles are a commentary on previous associations with Powell and his films. *Esmond Knight - Director in the film* Played in earlier Powell films. Was blind. What does this say about our director, Mark, or those of us who look through the lens? *Vivian - Moira Shearer* Actress in *The Red Shoes* (1948). In both films dancing leads to her death. In one film, she dies for art--in the other, her death creates art. *Helen - Anna Massey* Daughter of Powell veteran Raymond Massey. His role in *A Matter of Life and Death* (1946) is that of a Heavenly lawyer. So too is Helen a glimpse of Heaven for Mark in spite of/because of the fact that she is not glamorous like other women in his life. She offers him hope and builds a case that life--not death--is the answer. *Milly the Model - Pamela Green* A real life pin-up girl in all her teasing glory. Is this acting or her daily routine? Michael Powell and his son play the elder Dr. Lewis and young Mark. Just as in fiction, Powell terrorizes his son in real life for the sake of his work.

I wanted to record this one, but things didn't work out as planned. I'm really sorry I missed it now. Sounds like my cup of Earl Grey. Hopefully TCM programmer is listening out there and will get us a reshowing.

Speaking of *In A Lonely Place*, I finally found one of my favorite stills from the film: As you can see, the lighting and focus are incredible here.

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote} Let me add to the list "fetishism" Indeed. There are more than a few shots that bear this out. However, I would not liken Mark's obsession with his camera to, shall we say, Bu?uel's fascination with footwear. With Mark, his camera is an equal partner in his nature, yin to his yang, Hyde to his Dr. Jekyll. The camera is another way of looking, seeing, and exploration for him. But after all this, his camera is NOT the objective. His camera is but the MEANS to another way of life, another plane of existence. Another film that explores this idea (although in a much gentler fashion) is *Claire's Knee* (1970).

Thanks for the info. Both of these sound extremely interesting. I will try to check them out.