Arkadin

How could I forget The Getaway (1972)?

This stupid website cut off half of my post!! As I was saying: Are there still good films being made? Sure, but they are in the minority. Most people are not going to spend the money or 2 hours of their lives in something that has all the odds of a crapshoot in giving them satisfaction for their investment. It's much simpler to rent the film or borrow it from the library and view it in the comfort of your own home where you are free to pull it out of the player and get on with your life if said film is a bomb. These people have made the same complaints in the music industry which has been in stagnation since the early 90's. They ARE making money (I believe this summer broke records in revenue), but are not cultivating an audience that will grow with them through the years. They will have to catch that same under 25 crowd again with the same film the 30+ audience has seen and is bored with hence, the rental store. There was a thread about Bergman and Antonioni in this section where a critic basically called their work boring and insinuated that it has not aged well. I'm not surprised. Many of todays films insult the viewers intelligence by dumbing down everything to the lowest common denominator. there is no need to ponder the film and the art therein--it's all explained and layed out for you. While there are some great modern works that are becoming new classics these films are having trouble finding their perspective audiences who have given up hope for the medium and are sitting at home right now watching the 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma.

I'm sure Scott is upset with the downloading and burning that is possible within the digital media, but personally I would say the event of home video (which has been going on since the late 70's) poses the biggest threat to modern cinema whether he realizes it or not. Ever since people could own a VCR, Laserdisc player or other type of playing medium (Betamax anyone?) people in mass have been able to view what ever they wish in their own homes without a clumsy projector or other such device. A movie is not an event anymore--it's something you watch while eating dinner or falling asleep in bed. It's also important to note that you can watch ANYTHING (I can't get bold to work on this site any more--sorry) meaning you can watch a great film from any era (20's, 30's, 60, etc). This is what modern film is competing with--not rivals in the theater or another medium that competes for a customer's time, but their own past which in comparison to most modern films, is superior to today's INFERIOR product. Are there still great films being made? Sure, but many people who have been burned on previous efforts will not spend the time or money to wade through the tripe that passes for film today to find a diamond in a garbage dumpster when they can rent the film, view it in their own home, and pull it out of the player if they decide it stinks. It's the same thing with the music industry: make something that people want to hear and you'll get your money.

Rififi is probably the the best heist film ever made. Odds Against Tomorrow is a racial film under the guise of a heist film. Criss Cross is an ok film. I can't think of a ton of these types of films, but off the top of my head: He Ran All The Way (1951) The Good Die Young (1954) Across 110th Street (1972) Reservoir Dogs (1992) High Sierra (1941) Sexy Beast (2000) Cry Terror (1958) Bob le Flambeur (1956)

That's very intresting. I have seen the film and yes, I can definitely see the parallels, but I would have never thought of it. I have not seen that many Stallone films, but from what I have seen First Blood would be the best of his work.

Fred, I enjoy your observations as well. Keep them coming!

It's also interesting to note that Roy 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 failibilty of human nature. Walter Hustons character (as Fred says) freely admits what gold could do to any of them including himself. Bogie 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.

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)!

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I would say that Earle actually is redeemed at the end of High Sierra. We do know that his parents worked a farm which might have been lost to the depression (we are not given any details). He has no family and has just been released from prison into a community that has no place for him. He tries to become part of Velma's family. Velma is pretty, but crippled. Although Earle's motivation for fixing her foot is primarily selfish, Roy does legitimately feel compassion for her and is liked and respected by Pa. When Velma discards Earle (who views her as respectable and would lift his self worth and status as well) he finds himself an outsider yet again. As Marie and Paud enter the scene (in Velmas house) we have an instant comparison of Roy's real family against his whitewashed dream. Outcasts like himself, Marie and Paud come into the house because they love Roy, who begins to see them for who they really are, not the label or brand that has been attached to their lives (and his own). Velma was always an ideal and an illusion. It's what lies in the heart or nature of a person that makes them rich in life and contentment--not outside trappings. Realizing this Roy, Paud, and Marie become a family and Roy experiences contentment, probably for the first time in his life. This is the redemption of Roy Earle: He saw others (and himself) as society viewed them. In making Velma repectable to society he thought she would legitamize 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.

Can you be more specific about no romance in High Sierra? I saw quite a bit of romance in that film.

Other than The Petrified Forest, most of the type of roles Bogart would be known for (cynical lonely outsider who lives by his own code), had not been written yet. Huston who wrote the screenplays for High Sierra and the Maltese Falcon (and Treasure as well) tailored them for Bogart.

I will be checking that one out, thanks!

Sugarpuss, Yes, I think that would be an accurate discription of the film. I'm anxious to see the others you named as well. I have to work, but will be calling home to have wifey turn on the recorder every two hours!

A British film, The Hill (1965) has really not had the wide coverage or distribution of Connery?s Bond films. Although directed by American Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men [1957], Network [1976], The Verdict [1982]), well shot and acted, it never really found an audience in the U.S.. Sean Connery plays Joe Roberts, a sergeant major who is incarcerated in a North African military prison camp during WWII for attacking a senior officer. We are not told this in the beginning, but in a recent battle he lost over half his men under heavy fire. When ordered back into the maelstrom, Roberts refused and assaulted his superior instead. Regimental Sgt. Major Bert Wilson (Harry Andrews) runs the camp with disciplinary ideals more befitting the nineteenth century than modern times. The prison is made up of all types from profiteers and thieves to men found drunk on duty. His right hand man is an ambitious NCO guard known as Willams (Ian Hendry) who deals out punishment with a sadistic pleasure that goes far beyond Wilson?s reformatory ideals. The ?Hill? is a large man made pile of dirt and sand that prisoners are forced to run up and down till they drop from exhaustion. Wilson and Willams despise Connery who they consider a coward and concentrate on breaking his resolve. When Willams goes too far and kills a prisoner, Connery begins to wage his own war against the brutal guard and the prison system itself. This film has several close parallels to Jules Dassin?s 1947 Brute Force. Both are anti-prison films. Ian Hendry?s ?Willams? seems to be patterned after Hume Cronyn?s ?Captain Munsey?. In fact, Hendry even resembles Cronyn! Where the films differ though is in their objective. Connery is not trying to break out of the prison. He knew the cost of protecting his men and he willingly accepts the consequences. Instead he is an advocate for humane treatment of prisoners. Change in mankind must begin from within--it cannot be imposed by force. Roberts is in prison for protecting his troop against a hierarchy that did not see them as men, but expendable tools. In the cell block Roberts will protect his men again at personal cost to himself, because he knows their true value. Connery was looking for different roles in the mid-sixties as he felt the role of Bond would typecast him. Joe Roberts has none of Bond?s swagger, but a quiet inward resolve not to lose his humanity. His cellmates don?t trust him at first, they think of themselves as isolated individuals. Connery slowly win each of them over and they become a unit much like his troop. Ossie Davis the pioneering black actor, activist and filmmaker is especially effective as a fellow prisoner. Also look for Sir Michael Redgrave as the sympathetic prison doctor. All the actors have great chemistry in this film and you can really see them working off each other. Lumet?s shots are also interesting as they contrast the blazing sun with the dark cells. He doesn?t use a Noir look here which you would expect. We are always seeing the light whether it?s bearing down on the prisoners as heat or filtering through the bars as freedom that cannot be obtained. The Hill is one of those rare works that offers an honest look at the results of cruelty. Can you treat people as animals and not become one yourself? Roberts comment ?Even the Screws (prison staff) are doing time!? is especially insightful here. One wonders which is the captive, which is the keeper of the cage, and is there any difference between them?

I also applaud TCM for showing Black Ceasar (1973) on Underground. I think maybe I was the only one watching that night though.

The Learning Tree is a great choice. I 'd like to see these films shown: Killer of Sheep (1977) Across 110th Street (1972)

The Black Book is actually a nice little film, but yes, the DVD is awful looking. Another film that needs restoration.

Actually Glenn Ford was the fastest draw among Hollywood actors and knew how to shoot quite well. We're dealing with the illusion of film here anyway. A real cowboy or gunslinger would only load five bullets keeping the top chamber empty. That way there is no possible chance of accidents such as blowing off your foot.

Sorry about that. I must have opened new thread as I was trying to post a pic. afterwards. Still, it's a great film that could use more exposure!

A great modern western and one of my personal favorites. Any other fans?

A great modern western and one of my personal favorites. Any other fans?

I have a print of it. It's watchable, but nowhere near the quality we see in the short clips of The Wonderful Horrible Life of LR. You might check to see if your local library has a copy or you can get an ILL (Inter Library Loan) to view it and determine if it's worth buying. I wish they would put out a nice remastered cleaned up version like they have done with TOTW. I'm also dying to get a good copy of The Blue Light and Tiefland.

Both are great. I have both on disc so I'll never have to choose (except which one to watch first)!

There was a huge thread on Liz Scott and Stolen Face in the General discussion thread earlier this month.

> If you do watch House of Games, remember -- > you should never threaten someone with an empty gun! Or a water gun.