Arkadin

I rarely watch films all the way through. I simply don't have the time. Instead, I watch in segments of about thirty minutes, picking up and putting down like a book. I think this helps me, as I'm not watching the last half tired or falling asleep. It also gives me time away from the film to reflect on what I have seen and anticipate what is to come.

MISSISSIPPI MERMAID (1969) will show later this month. Hope you enjoyed last weeks film (WILD CHILD).

I've seen (and own) the film. It's a very interesting movie. Veidt gives an incredible performance and is quite touching. I would personally classify this as a silent film, but who cares? It's a great film, especially for fans of Veidt.

I don't know that these are the top films, but my personal favorites would be: ROPE (1948) VERTIGO (1958) SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943) SABOTAGE (1936) MARNIE (1964) Hard to pick just five. I also love SPELLBOUND (1945) very much and often feel it unfairly sits in NOTORIOUS' shadow when I think it's definitely it's equal if not a better film. LIFEBOAT (1944) is another underappreciated classic, and I also have strong feelings for THE WRONG MAN (1957). THE SECRET AGENT (1936) is another little gem that should be mentioned as well. Rats, I just named five more didn't I?

This print looks GREAT.

I love it when he hears her husband playing on the radio: "Very modern music."

Coming up soon (early 1/3), DOORWAY TO HELL is one of the great early gangster pictures that recieves almost no credit for it's influence. Lew Ayres is Louie Ricarno, a young man with ideas and ambition. When he takes over the gang syndicate and organizes territories and boundries, business begins to flourish. Louie's motives are not what we expect though. He's putting his kid brother through military school and planning on a quiet life in Florida for himself, writing his memoirs. Complications arise when Ricarno leaves the gang which is desperate to regain him at any cost. Many people have criticizied Lew Ayres in this role, stating he was "too nice" to be a gangster and would have preferred a similar switcharoo as THE PUBLIC ENEMY (1931) thinking supporting player James Cagney would have been a better fit in this film as well. I don't agree. Aryes boyish looks and charisma are what make him threatening here. His rise and success is not due to violence, but his intellect--which is the reason the gang wants him back. He finds no enjoyment in "the life", its simply a means to an end. Cagney would have not been the same in such a role. He's great here in support and does little of the mugging and facial over-expression that he himself felt harmed PE. While DOORWAY TO HELL is not a perfect film, I do believe it has a superior story line to LITTLE CEASAR or THE PUBLIC ENEMY. It also boasts some of the best lines in any gangster film ("Where you goin with that violin case?" "I gotta teach a guy a lesson."), and has an ending that never fails to move audiences. Catch it if you can.

We?re getting a Peter Lorre twofer tomorrow in the horror genre. MAD LOVE (1935) and THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS (1948) were made well over ten years apart, but both deal with pianists, severed hands, and a succumbing to madness. MAD LOVE is the better known of the pair and deservedly so. A talking remake of THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1924) (Kino will re-release a restoration of the silent version this year!), Lorre and Karl Freund make this film their own with ingenious sets and a Tour de Force performance. Pauline Kael in her article Raising Kane, accused Orson Welles of borrowing set ideas and his older Kane makeup from this film, and there does seem to be a connection. Colin Clive, who is this time the recipient of a crazed doctors fanaticism instead of the perpetrator, is superb here (?This is my pen.?). His wonderful imbalanced nature is well played, but probably owed some debt to his alcoholism, which was reaching it?s final stages at this time. THE BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS is an entirely different kettle of fish, dealing more with special effects than individual performances. Nevertheless, Lorre does a fine job here and the film contains many interesting twists. Max Steiner also creates one of the more disturbing scores of his career in a film about a murdered pianist whose severed hand stalks the living. In seeing STRANGER ON THE THIRD FLOOR (1940) again recently, I was struck by the similarities in Lorre?s characters (5 FINGERS). Although the films are quite different they both play out in a whodunit style fashion with nightmarish sequences. The audience perception is the dividing factor, as director Robert Florey puts the hard task of distinguishing dream from reality in our laps for most of the film. Lorre was capable of much more than crazed maniacs (Don?t miss his wonderful role in THREE STRANGERS [1946] coming up in March), but was mostly typecast by Hollywood directors that never tapped the broader range of his talents. His performances here are incredible and you can see how it?s not just his eyes or facial movements, but the way he carries his body. Notice how he will make himself rigid and taut and then go limp working the two back and forth in a series of climaxes and releases as his characters lose touch with reality. While equally adept at comedy and other roles, it?s understandable these are the types of films he is remembered for. One last note, if you are a pianist, I urge you to practice before viewing. You might not feel up to it afterwards.

The New Year starts with a bang (literally!). TCM has never showed this SciFi classic to my knowlege. Perhaps the most ambitious film about the future since METROPOLIS (1927), THINGS TO COME is certainly it's equal in set design. Scriptwise there's no contest--TTC definitely surpasses Lang's classic in scope and vision, although Willam Menzies does not have his directorial flair. The story was originally written by H.G. Wells (THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME) who also wrote the screenplay and had many controlling aspects over the film. Much of the story blends fears of the time (impending of WWII, poison gas, dictatorship) with futuristic ideas as traveling to the moon which would happen only 30 years later. Wells anticipates many things of the future (including a desired peaceful colony in Iraq!) and rightly believes there are no plateaus. Mankind must continue to grow or die. Hope you will enjoy this one. Don't forget to look for Raymond Massey. In his autobiography he claims working on this project was one of the most enjoyable films he made.

I just found this thread. Wonderful writing and analysis CM. I'd love to see your work (films) sometime.

Hi Bg, C&W is an incredible film. Bergman has often mentioned the red backdrops and dissolves stating that it was intended to simulate the interior of a womb. I think my favorite part is the opening where Harriet Andersson sets the clock in motion to note the precious nature of time in her life. When we are young, time has no meaning (ie--clock stopped) , but here--every tick represents a heartbeat of life ebbing away. Great film, glad you enjoyed it.

SPELLBOUND is out of print (as are REBECCA and NOTORIOUS). TCM will be showing it soon though.

Personally, I think Criterion provides great transfers and prints. They also usually have decent extras and there's usually at least two essays on the film. Some people might think the price is expensive, but Criterion does clean up these films, many of which would be almost unwatchable and buried in tape hiss. By contrast, some of Kino's films which are similarly priced (SUDDEN FEAR (1952) for example) look horrible with no extras at all. Many newer films that are released cost around the same amount of money as Criterion's releases. The bottom line is--do you want a good looking film or not? The sad thing about all of this is the fact that ALL DVD's are too expensive. You are actually paying more for the packaging than the actual product. DVD's are actually cheaper to make than videocassettes, but have remained the same or higher in price. I found an amusing article years ago saying that Sony was selling a DVD of a popular film for around $2.00 (American) in Hong Kong and China because of the rampant black market. Sony representatives said the official release costs a fraction more, but they lowered the price hoping that consumers would prefer to have a better transfer and extras to a shabby bootleg. THEY THEN SAID THEY WERE STILL MAKING A PROFIT! What does that tell you about the prices we are paying?

I don't believe in the ignore function either. Not to insult those who use it, but I believe the purpose of this forum should be the interaction and sharing of information which give us new insights and discoveries. I understand some people are abusive and that's the reason it was introduced, but many times I feel it would be better if people articulated their feelings and didn't just say "This stinks" or "I hate this" without discussing what motivated their thoughts. Obviously, we are not all going to like or enjoy the same things. Writing helps me to clarify my thoughts about what a film means to me. I think we are touched by things we view, but many times the why of it all is buried in our subconscious. Writing helps me to draw out and articulate those things that make a film special to me (which is why I shared my essay). Many times when I've not enjoyed a supposed "Classic" film, I turn to others thoughts and literary critcism on the subject to see if there is something I'm not seeing or scenes that could be clarified. I know seeing some of Fellini's works like 8 1/2 (1963) or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS (1965) pretty much demand some type of literary investigation to comprehend what's going on. All this doesn't mean I'll like the film, but it gives me a chance to note what others see, and gauge different viewpoints against my own. Sometimes we as viewers don't see the film under the best circumstances, or perhaps the emotional baggage we carry doesn't jive with the perspective of life we are shown. Nevertheless, I'm always open to others views and are interested in what they see and why they feel the way they do about film. A good discussion helps me to find different things in a movie I might never have seen before and scrutinize certain areas that others (or I) have doubts on. I'll usually give a film at least three chances over a good period of time before making up my mind on it. Many times films I initially disliked became my favorites upon repeat viewings. While we might never see eye to eye on NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, I welcome any discussion on the subject--favoring or opposing views. It's a polarizing film that usually places people on different sides--not just on it's styling and acting, but the issues portrayed as well. Discussion is also lot more interesting than reading posts that just say: "I like/hate that too."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. It would be quite boring on this forum if we all thought the same way or enjoyed the same things.

I have a really crummy looking copy from 6 or 7 years ago when they last showed the film. I'm hoping to get a great looking print this time round. If anything bad should happen, hopefully there will be someone here with a good recording!

Edited Message was edited by: Arkadin

You weren't the only one requesting. This is the best of the Lorre/Greenstreet films (along with the aforementioned THE VERDICT) in my opinion, and has an interesting depth that many of the other films--great as they are--lack. I hope people will be recording this underappreciated gem which has never been availible on video or DVD.

Hi Bronxie, Nick Ray's JOHNNY GUITAR is a very complex film visually, sexually, and socially. It was never really appreciated upon release in the U.S., but Europeans took to it immediately. I have to get to work and don't have time to discuss right now, but I will try to get to it soon. Dewey is a big fan of this film as well. You might check with him on his thoughts.

ECSTASY has actually shown on TCM before. It's a very interesting film that owes a lot to expressionist type film making, yet it's not an expressionist film.

Oops! double post. Message was edited by: Arkadin

BODY AND SOUL (1947) Garfield shows up at his mom's house, shows up at Lilli Palmer's flat.

I would agree that THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH pales alongside it's earlier counterpart. I also enjoy Hitch's first two films in his "Wronged Man" trilogy (39 STEPS, SABOTEUR) to NORTH BY NORTHWEST. However, ROPE (1948), STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, (1950), DIAL M FOR MURDER (1954), THE WRONG MAN (1957), VERTIGO (1958), PSYCHO (1960), and MARNIE (1964) are not only masterpieces, but films that broke boundaries and changed the landscape of cinema. We all have different tastes, but I really don't think anyone can look at these movies objectively and not see these very works referenced in other great films by young (and older) directors who later became great in their own right. While there are some incredible films in the 30's and 40's, Hitch also made some lesser quality works in those eras as well (JAMAICA INN, MR. AND MRS. SMITH,etc.), but I would say even Hitchcock's total failures are more interesting than most films, and all are worthy of study.

Love the "Moral Tales" and "Seasonal" films. I have seen a few of the others here and there. Is there one you'd especially reccomend? I recently participated in a best film contest where we all had to pick our top top 25 films (no easy task) on another forum. One of mine was CLAIRE'S KNEE (1970).

By the way, are you familar with CHINESE ROULETTE (1976)? I ask because it's my personal favorite of Fassbinder's work, but I have yet to hear from anyone else here who's seen it.