Arkadin

I don't have time to talk about both (gotta go to work) so let's start with Harvey. To me the focus of the film is not Harvey, but Elwood P. Dowd who is different from every other character in the film. Dowd is the eternal optimist. He always sees the best in people. He views the glass of life as half-full while others view it as half-empty. We spend the first part of this film wondering if Elwood is crazy. His being kind to others is deliberately linked with his friend Harvey the Pooka. Everyone tries to get him to snap out of it and be "normal", but is the normality they believe in what we as humans want out of life? We begin to glimpse through the film that there is more to Elwood than first shown. By the end of the film, we believe in Harvey like the doctor does--but the rest of the world cannot see him. The doctor has less than pure motives. He is not an innocent like Elwood. Therefore we must assume that Harvey reveals himself to whomever he wishes and it has nothing to do with the state of one's heart (right Mr. Wilson?) This story is not about Harvey, but about Elwood P. Dowd's resistance to become a "normal human being" (and you know what stinkers they are!). Therefore, seeing Harvey at the end of the film is unnecessary.

To jump off topic (which might not be a bad thing till we all settle down a bit) I've never thought spoilers were a bad thing. If a movie is a good one it will still be enjoyable. Besides, the films you love to watch over and over you already know what's going to happen--they're just great films that you find something new in every time you watch. Sometimes knowing what is going to happen can keep me watching a film if a certain part seems slow or I don't know what's going on at a particular time. I understand not everyone feels the same though.

Well, hopefully "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (1945) will be released soon and cheer us all up (as cheery as that movie can be). Sanders should have got a Best Supporting Actor Award for that film. Hurd Hatfield often gets overlooked because he has the more subtle role, but he does so much with his eyes, facial expression, and body movements. He did an incredible job (as did Angela Lansbury).

My personal feelings about JW are similar to my thoughts on Brando: If they are "ON" they can do an incredible job, but if you see them in roles that are not right for them they appear to be overacting quite a bit. I would suggest you look through the reccomendations here and try to find a few films that most Wayne enthusists agree on. I would probably reccomend: Stagecoach (1939) Red River (1948) The Quiet Man (1952) The Searchers (1956)

Coming on Tuesday afternoon (3/6). Any other fans of this film?

Thank you. I will be recording it.

Actually Alex did not rape the woman in the scene with the ceramic ****. He killed her. The rape scene (or at least the one we see Alex commit) is the famous "Singing in the Rain" scene. I find nothing funny about that scene at all. If anything it is more horrifying because Alex is singing and smiling while he rapes and also beats her husband. As I said in an earlier thread, this scene was influenced by the off-key whistle in "M" (1931) and anticipated the ear cutting incident in "Black Ceasar" (1973) (coming to TCM in a few months), which both in turn inspired the scenes in Reservoir Dogs (1992).

I loved Martha Raye. Her work with Chaplin in "Monsieur Verdoux" (1947) is inspired. It's also my favorite Chaplin film and is one of the best dark comedies of all time in my opinion.

He left behind a note that said "I am committing suicide because I am bored". He said a few other things about wishing all of us luck on this cesspool of life and OD'd on pills. He was very unstable in his last years, but I think the chief reason was because his wife Benita Hume (who was Ronald Colman's wife till his death) died of cancer and it broke his heart. Sanders had very few friends and I think Benita was the only one who he really opened himself up to. When she passed away, he floundered and could find no foothold. There is an interesting book written by his friend (he only had 2 close friends) Brian Aherne: http://www.amazon.com/Dreadful-Man-Brian-aherne/dp/0671247972/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-5947792-0559919?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173056877&sr=1-2

This same thing happened when CD'd were first availible. Lot's of things that were out of print for years were reissued for a short while. The best advice is to grab it while you can.

The film does explain itself. Unfortunately, Kubrick chose to make a film about a book which has it's strength in language. Kubrick tries to use that language whenever he can (to his credit), but it's still a far cry from the book. The film and the book both involve the same theme though: Is it better for one to have free will--even if that free will is harmful to others? That is an honest question many people (especially those victims of violent crime) seriously ask. The bottom line though is your comment that rape was funny. I certainly don't hold that viewpoint.

Rape is NEVER funny or humorous in the least. My wife was raped twice when she was in her teens and we STILL live with the consequences. For you to make the statement you did makes me question if you understood that film at all.

Anyone else seen this film? I just finished it and it's an interesting companion piece to the documentary "Blind Spot: Hitler's Secratary" (2002). It deals with Hitler's last days in the bunker and is quite interesting from a historical standpoint.

The funniest part is when Crow and Tom don't want him back!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKev6hHd-HY

That was a funny episode! I loved the short on "springs" with Coily the spring sprite!

Sanders is one of my favorite actors. The man could do almost anything. He had a fine singing voice, could wire electronics, had his own machine shop where he built things and a mind like a steel trap. He never thought much of the acting profession, probably because it came so naturally to him and was often bored by it. One of his favorite things was trying to figure out ways to avoid paying taxes! His suicide in 1972 was a tragedy.

> > Oh Judas Priest, I just looked up Of Mice and Men on > imdb -- Malkovich and Sinise? Give me a freaking > break. No way. No how. I don't know who that > Casey guy is, but I bet he was no Bob Steele (who was > a stunt man, right?). Heresy, I say. You really should see that version before you make a judgment on it. "Mice" was a play that Malkovich and Sinise did for several years. They are both great stage actors who came into movies. It also comes much closer to the book in my opinion. In fact, this is one of the few films that I would rate as good as the book. I have seen both versions many times and I much prefer the latter.

Oops misread your post. Thought you said it wasn't banned. The caffine is making me jumpy.

No, that was "Straw Dogs" (1971)!

How could you not list "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (1966)? Possibly the worst film ever made. Here's one of my favorite clips from MST3K: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J4470lkV_A "The Final Sacrifice" (1990) is a masterpiece of awful work. Zap Rowsdower is clearly a hero of our times!

They were on fire during that period matching each other in great films and acting. How they were both overlooked for AA's is one of the biggest goofs ever.

Could you be thinking about "Scarlet Street" (1945)? In this movie (Spoiler) he kills a girl and lets her boyfriend be executed for the crime. Afterwards, he hears the dead girl and the boyfriend talking to each other and it drives him crazy.

I usually watch alone. One thing I also do is watch in segments. It's rare for me to sit down and watch a film all the way through. I just don't have the time. What I will do instead, is put a DVD in the player and watch about 30 mins. or so until I have to do something else. I don't read books in one session so why should a film be any different? I also have different films in different players in my house and it's not uncommon for me to watch 30 mins. of one in the kitchen while I eat and later watch another 30 mins. of a different film while in bed (I do that with books too).

I do know that Bendix was turned down for WW2 enlistment because of his heart condition. He and Allan Ladd were great friends and lived across the street from each other. Ladd actually tried to get out of military service but wound up having to do some time at the base and was allowed home on weekends (as folks would say he had a good war). One night WB was over and Ladd started complaining about having to serve and it really hacked Bendix off. They continued to live in the same place, but hardly ever spoke again.

Posts: 560 From: South Carolina Registered: 08/04/2006 3:07 EDT Re: A. Hitchcock's THE MAN WHO ... Posted: 03/02/2007 12:38 EST in response to: benwhowell Reply My (DVD) copy isn't the best quality. Is there a restored version? I had been hunting for a decent copy for 20 years (!) ever since discovering the 1934/35 version the same week I bought my first VHS machine (the store rented tapes and CED discs - remember those?); it was in a two-tape set with "Young and Innocent" - another one of my all-time favorites (and with Miss Pilbeam). FINALLY a year or so ago I found the Image laserdisc (after investing in two DVDs - including the Platinum - whoops, just checked, mine's Vintage HE, not Platinum, but likely the same). It was BY FAR the best I've ever seen. I'd say that must be the one that TCM used when they showed it (for the first time) a little over a year ago. I don't know that anyone has released that particular one yet on DVD, but if you have an LD player.... Now, the only remaining question is: Is there REALLY a version that is 80-84 minutes out there somewhere?? Several versions have claimed the longer length(s) (including the Vintage), as well as Maltin's guides until recently (now showing 75 minutes, too). Every one (going back 20 years) that claimed longer has been 75 minutes that I've found. The two movies are just completely different experiences. Color/Cinemascope/expansive vs b/w-on-a-tight-budget-taut-as-a-tick. The main thing in common is the Albert Hall sequence(s). Till then, I could almost be watching two different stories. I've always thought (for myself) the 1934 beat the daylights out of the 1956 - but I do like both. And the song was good enough she sang it again a couple of years later (was it "Please, Don't....?). I don't mind hearing it, say, once a year! Bill