Arkadin

?Do you realize what we are asking Kwan Yin to do? We want her to reshuffle a hand that destiny has already dealt us. Why? Because we hope to gain higher cards.? Merely a trifle for a Chinese goddess. In Three Strangers (1946), Kwan Yin will reshuffle the fortunes of three lives, but sadly cannot change their outcome. When Crystal Shackelford (Geraldine Fitzgerald) brings two unknown men to her apartment on the eve of Chinese New Year, her intentions are not what they seem. A follower of eastern religion, Shackelford believes the legend that if three strangers come to Kwan Yin on New Years Eve with a solitary wish, the desire of their hearts will be granted. Jerome Arbutny (Sydney Greenstreet) and John West (Peter Lorre) are skeptical, but willing to play along. Shackelford suggests their single desire should be money, and a sweepstakes ticket held by West becomes their point of contact with the spiritual world. Originally written by John Huston in the mid-thirties, Three Strangers was meant to be a follow up to Huston?s successful directing debut, The Maltese Falcon (1941) with Bogart, Mary Astor, and Greenstreet in their respective roles. However, when Warners was finally ready to start production, Greenstreet was the only name still available. Director Jean Negulesco fought for Lorre?s inclusion as John West, the gentle tippler. Usually cast as villains and psychotics, this role was a breath of fresh air and showed much more of his range. Three Strangers occupies a unique middle ground between the seekers of The Maltese Falcon and the darker human nature of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948). The film is also unusual in that it traces each character's life separately until their ill-fated reunion, cleverly weaving three different stories together. Huston?s characters are always caught up in grandeur, obsessed by what they do not have, instead of finding contentment with life as it is. While the things they seek (a falcon, gold, uranium, etc.) are not evil in themselves, they often uncover the true nature of one?s heart, which is often spiritually and morally bankrupt. Lorre would continue in similar roles with Greenstreet, making other thrillers, but none matched the scope or intensity of Three Strangers (although The Verdict, made the same year, comes close). Three Strangers shows tomorrow on 3/11/08.

My wife and I have many similar interests, but we have many seperate interests as well. Personally, I think it's great because I'm always introduced to new things that I would not seek out on my own. We agree and disagree on many things, but it certainly has not harmed our relationship. Compromise is perhaps the number one factor in a marriage. Your life is not your own anymore. If you and your respective other are unwilling to bend and give ground to each other and accept one another for who you are, perhaps you should not get married.

Some of my faves:

Films that have not been mentioned: Blonde Fever (1944) Roughshod (1949) The Glass Wall (1952) Of Human Desire (1954) I'm also a big fan of this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm3BcvUjk84 For those wanting a bio, check out Suicide Blonde by Vincent Curcio.

It's been released by Critic Choice and Roan, but the prints are just awful. I think the last time TCM showed this film was in 2000-01 and the print looked great! Hopefully, tonight's showing will look good as well.

When climbing the corporate ladder, it?s a common belief that it?s not where your feet are on the rungs, but WHO they?re on. Rod Serling?s Patterns (showing early 3/9) deals with many of these ideas about footprints in the corporate world, yet it?s amazingly balanced in its views of big business and how it is nourished and fed. While films such as Wall Street (1987) paint broad strokes of unfeeling capitalistic greed, Serling?s ode to capitalism is much more complex, even though it was first written as a TV drama over 30 years beforehand. Hired by Walter Ramsey (Everett Sloane) at the executive level, Fred Staples (Van Heflin) knows nothing about head games or power plays. That?s about to change as Fred realizes that he?s been brought in so that 40-year man Bill Briggs (Ed Begley) can be tossed like yesterday?s newspaper. A compassionate man, Briggs? ideals are unworkable in modern business. His refusal to resign enrages Ramsey and creates a test of wills, which Briggs literally hasn?t the stomach (or heart) for. Patterns was first developed as a television drama, but soon became a film with the same actors repeating their roles with the exception of Richard Kiley who was replaced by Van Heflin to bring a bigger name to the project. Everett Sloane won an Emmy for his TV performance and Rod Serling also won for Best Written Teleplay. Perhaps the most amazing aspect when one looks at this film, is how every characters point of view is understood and given equal weight. Unlike The Apartment (1960), How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (1967) or the aforementioned Wall Street, there are no shady characters or dishonest dealings here. Ramsey may be an uncompromising businessman, but there?s nothing crooked about him?he simply wants what?s best for the company. Briggs is a kind man, but good intentions don?t always create results (as his failure with his own son proves), and if his sympathy hurts the company, he renders them unable to aid the very people he cares so much about. Fred understands Briggs, but he also knows that you can?t do business with a handshake anymore. He also realizes that he too is ambitious (?I want the job.?), perhaps for the first time in his life. Business is always personal?even when it?s impersonal, and has a life of its own. As Ramsey states: ?It?s nobody?s business! It belongs to us right now because we?re producing, but in the future it belongs to whoever has the brains, the nerve, and the skill to take it away from us.? In that respect, success is always the bottom line--and a harsh taskmaster to boot.

Great work as usual Ed. Your writing is always informative, but never dry. I'm always amazed at your ability to squeeze in so much info and yet make it flow so well. Enjoyed it very much.

Frank, got Dementia for Xmas, but haven't had a chance to watch yet. Some weekend I'll do a double bill review with you, if you''ll watch In a Lonely Place.

Hey Frank, I personally agree and think it's his best film. I love Once Upon a Time in the West (1969), but that film borrows many ideas that were originally found here. The chimes have a lot of symbolism. It's interesting that every time Indio uses the watch, its only when he has the upper hand. The watch is an indicator of the life clock, and the chimes slow down like a dying heartbeat. Indio enjoys playing with people before he kills them--like a cat with a mouse. The last gunbattle is fantastic because at first Mortimer thinks his life is over and it all registers on his face. Then Mortimer's watch is used against Indio and he too clearly knows he's beaten. If you want to start a 20 page thread on this film--I'm game.

He also has one of my favorite lines: "In ten minutes you'll be smoking in Hell!"

Sergio Leone's much forgotten masterpiece plays tomorrow night on TCM. Two bounty hunters after the same prey, join forces to catch a drug crazed bandit--but do they ever really trust each other? For a Few Dollars More, the second film of the "Dollars" trilogy, is possibly Leone's most complete and deepest work. While clearly in the western genre, echoes of film noir including flashback and betrayal permeate its styling. The result is an incredible film that has unfortunately been sandwiched between two more popular, but simplistic movies. Manco (Eastwood) is a young bounty hunter who stumbles onto the trail of Indio, a notorious criminal (Gian Maria Volont?). Standing in his way is Col. Douglas Mortimer (Lee van Cleef) who wants Indio for his own reasons which also tie in to Indio's flashbacks, and a mysterious chiming watch that becomes a foreshadowing of death. There are so many great scenes here; Manco playing cards for a man's life in the opening sequence, Indio's sermon in a ruined church to his gang about a bank job (the parable of the carpenter), quick cuts between Mortimer's eyes and a wanted poster of Indio accompanied by gunfire sound effects, and more. Acting is well done with a minimum of dialogue. Eastwood and his costars are many times not given credit for their skills, with lavish praise going instead to Leone's close-ups and framing. Although masterfully directed, it's the players abilities to convey the unspeakable that give this film its depth, and in some contexts, For a Few Dollars More plays almost like something from the silent genre. Scoring was in the hands of legendary composer Ennio Morricone whose work is always amazing, but in this particular film it's his music that helps us to understand the plot and brings the story to it's climax. The title of the film might seem to cash in on the notoriety of its predecessor (Fist Full of Dollars (1964)), but actually is a play on words dealing with value?material and spiritual. Manco values money and judges men by the price on their heads. Mortimer once believed in Manco?s ideals, but no longer (?One day something happened that made life very precious to me.?) and has become a driven man. Indio, haunted by dreams and flashbacks, is his polar twin with a timepiece binding them together. That the film refuses to define which is the better cause, is perhaps for the best. As Mortimer replies to Manco: ?The question isn?t impolite, but the answer might be.?

Hi Bg. Sorry you did not enjoy Nobody Lives Forever. While I'll agree it's not the cream of his work (that would be Force of Evil for me), I personally love Garfield and enjoy him in whatever he's in. He was so far down the chain at WB that many of his films were ones that other actors such as Bogart, Robinson, and Raft had already turned down. He got lucky with Out of the Fog (1941) which Bogie also campaigned for, but many times he was forced into roles he didn't care for by WB and its to his credit that he was able to create something unique out of them.

Many interesting ideas that became staples of Hitch's later work, are explored here. Hitch had played with sexual undercurrents and themes before, but with this film (and all his subsequent works) he began to take a deeper look at sexuality and its influence in our lives. Also, many staging techinques like the trial played out on Bergman face, would reappear in other films like Dial M for Murder (1953). The Dali centerpiece would inspire the dream sequence of Vertigo (1958), and also the use of the color red that would prefigure Marnie (1964). Finally, the film is wonderfully acted and played with top marks going to Michael Chekhov as Bergman's old mentor, and Rhonda Fleming debuting as a sexually-warped inmate with a little bit of rage problem managment. Spellbound is often not considered one of Hitchcock's masterpieces, but its definitely the transitional film, without which, the later great movies could never have materialized.

I definitely understand your point, but I and many SSO posters enjoy both forums. There are many people who for some reason or another stick to one forum exclusively and I come here to read their thoughts and converse with them (same with SSO). I mainly like to discuss film analysis and there are many people here who will discuss films that aren't discussed at SSO and vice versa.

I definitely agree. While I don't mind fun and games once in awhile, I am here to talk about film. Lately, many threads are so intertangled with personal battles that I don't really feel like posting. I try and show respect to others and I expect the same in return. I don't think that's too much to ask of anyone. It doesn't matter to me if you're 16 or 60. If you want to talk film, I'm interested.

Garfield always had great leading ladies (I would have loved to have met him, but I would have left my wife at home!). Also worthy of mention: Eleanor Parker (Pride of the Marines) Jennifer Jones (We Were Strangers) Lilli Palmer and Hazel Brooks (Body and Soul) Marie Windsor (Miss Queen of the B's herself!) (Force of Evil) I did not mention Tortilla Flat (1942) because I think that film has a lot of problems--especially in comparison with Stienbeck's story, but it does have Hedy Lamarr!

TCM will be playing some rarely shown Garfield works this week. Don't miss these! Pride of the Marines (1945) Playing blinded war hero Al Schmitt, Garfield stuggles to adjust to a new life without sight. We Were Strangers (1949) Garfield made this great little political thriller about an American who attempts to assassinate Cuban leaders and start a revolution. One wonders what the HUAC thought of this film. Nobody Lives Forever (1946) If you can only record or watch one film--make it this one. Its out of print, and TCM hasn't shown it in years. Garfield plays a confidence man who romances a wealthy widow for her fortune. A wonderful noir with a standout performance by Walter Brennan. Body and Soul (1947) One of John Garfield's most entertaining films, Body and Soul would influence boxing movies for the next thirty years. This was Garfield's biggest success, and gave him independance from major studios. It's also safe to say without Body and Soul, later more influential works such as Force of Evil (1948) and He Ran All the Way (1951) could never have been made. Force of Evil (1948) The story of two brothers--one a racketeer the other a shady lawyer for a mob boss, F.O.E. is one of the most incredible films ever made. It's the beginning of the modern mob picture. People like Coppola and Scorsese were quite inspired and borrowed freely from this little B film. He Ran All the Way (1951) This was Garfield's last film and it's one of his best. In many ways it parallels what was going on in his life at that time (being hounded by the government and FBI and accused of being a communist). He really runs the gamut of emotions in this film about a crook who holds a family hostage in their home. Finally, be sure to check out "The John Garfield Story". An hour long bio on the man and his life.

posted 2x. Sorry. Please ignore. Message was edited by: Arkadin

To let the men hang would be passing judgment (and sentence) on these men who attempted to kill him. This act would make Joe a killer and part of this very group he abhors. Joe's final willingness to come forward, proves his humanity and shows that he is unlike the mob.

A great film that has many fascinating layers. I will be watching tonight--right after I brush my teeth.

I love both films which show different sides of human nature. Bogart's characters in High Sierra and Treasure are very similar in the opening frames in that they are decent men who do not take advantage of others. But where Earle's heart is redeemed, Dobbs loses his humanity. Dobbs only takes his money from the guy that wouldn't pay and he does share his lottery ticket and is generous with his fellow miners, but as greed begins to take root in him, little by little we see his goodness eaten away. It's a great credit to the writing and Bogart's skills that this is done gradually and played out over time. Incidentally, that's director John Huston "staking him to a meal". One of the best director cameos ever (although Polanski in Chinatown is equally great)! It's interesting to note that Roy in High Sierra is so lacking in self worth that he will do almost anything to join a society which is shown to be cold and corrupt (the nicest people in the film besides the main characters are Roy's old boss and the doc. Pa is the only exception) while Dobbs overestimates himself and the fallibility of human nature. In Treasure, Walter Hustons character freely admits what gold could do to any of them including himself. Dobbs is sure it will never happen to him, but he's never had anything, so he's never faced temptation, and when he falls--it's a long way down. Roy on the other hand, saw others (and himself) as society viewed them. In making Velma respectable to society, he thought she would legitimize him as well, but she betrayed him. Earle finally comes to know that life does not consist of what others say you are (he frequently proves this in the film by his own actions), but who you are as an individual and the nature of your heart. In realizing this about Marie, he is also able to see himself as worthy of love and able to love her. Society does not forgive or forget and although they cast Roy out of their world, it was a world he was too grand for, which is Marie's final understanding of his death.

I definitely agree with you LuckyDan. Boxing is only the surface of this film, which holds many layers that tell us not only about Joey and Jake, but ourselves as well. I also do not agree with the idea that all boxing films are the same. There are some common threads in dealing with the sport, but I find huge differences in BODY AND SOUL (1947), THE SET UP (1949), REQUIEM FOR A HEAVYWEIGHT (1962), and RAGING BULL.

Sadly, this is true more often than companies would care to admit. The Zhang Yimou/Gong Li collaborations of the early 90's such as JU DOU and RAISE THE RED LANTERN were poorly transfered from awful prints. Most people hung on to their VHS tapes. MGM finally released a decent transfer of RAISE, but JU DOU still has not come to DVD in any kind of acceptable fashion. Worse yet RED SORGHUM (1988) Yimou/Gong's debut, has never been released on DVD at all!

Ah well, to each his own. As I said, I really like the dramatic work he did and wish TCM would play those films more often.

A very underrated actor who most people considered just a personality. He was usually only known for his comedic skills which were amazing in themselves. Look at the scenes in His Girl Friday (1940), where he and Russell run though lines at 80 miles and hour, yet they are perfectly in sync and taking every hairpin turn together. Bringing up Baby (1939) shows a totally different personality type and great physical comedy. Comedy is timing. It's not so much what you say as how you say it. Unfortunately, the Academy doesn't really hand out Oscars for comedy roles which is a shame, because it shows how little some people know about acting. If they were to see the lines on paper before seeing the film, perhaps they would have a greater appreciation for what these gifted people do with their roles. When Grant did step into drama, he was as good as anyone in the business. Films Like Notorious (1946) and Crisis (1950) showed quite a different side of Grant. One he should have probably explored more. Clifford Odettes' None but the Lonely Heart (1944) pushed the envelope of his skills and is a great performance. In Name Only (1939) is another fine example. It frustrates me to no end when I'm told (once by a TCM poster) "Cary Grant just played the same role over and over." These people are fooled by his ability to create a great part or line and make it work within his style. My personal favorite of his moments on film, is in Only Angels Have Wings (1939) when Jean Arthur realizes he is crying over the death of the Kid. It's a beautiful shot--and it's Cary Grant.